99174ecf

Cometh The Hour, Cometh The HR Team

Thu, 25 Mar 2021 17:10:42 GMT

How companies must adapt for a psychologically effective work place.

Research suggests that sparing a thought for your HR Team this quarter may reap disproportionately long term rewards. Over the past few years it's likely that your human resources talent have been busily preparing your company for comparative (in pandemic terms) fripperies. These will have included leaving the EU, attracting the best talent with new ‘woke’ requirements, machine learning and AI based shifts in personnel, to name a few. Of late however, many such tasks will have been sidelined as your HR professionals negotiate the myriad of Covid related complexities. Thus, whilst many well honed human resources teams may appear to be gliding serenely through the water, it's likely that they are paddling furiously beneath. In recent months, alongside the plethora of complex pre-covid challenges brought forth during recent years, your HR professionals will have been equally consumed with the dramatic changes facing the broader post covid landscape of human resources itself.

It was observed in 1809 that long term survival of an organism is dependant predominantly upon its ability to adapt to change. Organisations are no different. A wave of change is inarguably upon corporations and the way they deal with their human element. In response to which, many of our corporate clients are choosing to discard the often ‘auxiliary’ perception of the HR team. Human Resources functions are being driven closer towards the heart of many forward thinking organisations, as leadership begin to heed research supporting that this team of people have the innate ability to empower profitable corporate change. Questions many companies are currently asking themselves include: How prepared is our company for the intensity of corporate reshaping prompted by the current global pandemic? Does our HR team have the tools and breadth of operation it needs to respond to the new specific ‘human’ and ‘remote’ challenges we face? In answering these questions, the following areas of HR ops are pivotal.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Adecco group has recently found that 75 percent of workers wish to keep the flexibility they have benefited from during the pandemic. More surprisingly however is research suggesting that this new method of professional functioning may actually be of value to employers: Flexible workers are often more engaged and statistically less likely to leave. Now, this is where the real work begins for HR and where their metal is tested. How can your company or team maximise the performance of its professionals whilst not falling foul of the many and well documented pitfalls associated with flexible/ home working? Such snares are summarised by research institutions including The Centre for Evidence Based Management. Studies underline that hazards tend to fall under three main factors highlighted as being vital in a ‘psychologically effective workplace’. These three essential factors are ‘trust’, ‘information sharing’ and ‘social cohesion’. Three constructs which are illusive at the best of times within most organisations and even harder to achieve when the workforce is at home.

It becomes clear then, that some hard graft will be required if we are to cultivate a psychologically effective workplace and reap the aforementioned benefits offered to us by a more a more flexible working environment. HR teams must devise new ways to create drive, innovation, thrust and rapport amongst an organisations greatest asset – its professionals. In recognition of the broadening roles of the oft-pidgeonholed HR team, forward thinking companies are prioritising support for HR executives in their exploration of how to inspire leadership and their teams in this new age. As well as considering the dramatic adaptation which HR is currently attempting to facilitate, daily tasks will also need rethinking. Many will attest for example to the difficulties associated with onboarding where new hires don’t even enter an office. Possibly, Human Resources have never had a more acute part to play in the performance of an organisation than now, when they must consider how to nurture a psychologically effective working culture, remotely.

Another central area to support your HR professionals in, is that of wellbeing. Whilst this concept is by no means new and sits close to the top of many corporate agendas, thanks to Covid this concept has taken on a new level of gravity and functional importance. Before 2020, more employees than ever were suffering from poor mental health. After what is now a year of social isolation, professional upheaval, emotional challenge and financial hardship, our workforce is under more (invisible) pressure than ever. Just as a race car cannot be expected to win with worn parts, our professionals will not outperform the competition when they’re run down and stressed. It is perhaps timely and logical that HR teams also be given the tools they need to offer services which maximise personal growth, professional development and mental wellbeing.

Whether handled via an in-house team or outsourced to an external HR specialist, now is the time for HR professionals to be accurately utilised. Any flippant regard for this fundamental department should as of now be placed firmly in the corporate rear view mirror. Visionary leadership will be required going forward to create the necessary human resource driven adaptations if organisations are to take advantage of the possibilities presented by the new flexible/ remote working culture. Cometh the hour, cometh the HR team...

Leading From Home

Tue, 21 Apr 2020 15:09:53 GMT

Keeping Your Team on Target

In an ideal world, we all sat down with our teams three weeks ago to establish a clear set of remote-working policies. We developed secure IT protocols, identified optimal communication procedures and rolled out comprehensive training programs. All this in advance of being sent to ‘home offices’ with high speed broadband and posture optimised desk chairs. I have few clients however, no matter how large the organisation, who have had the time to achieve just such an operational panacea, iether for themselves or their employees. Thus, in reaction to current global circumstances, a kind of virtual first aid has been performed within many organisations, with office workers and managers triaging as best they can. Now, as UK companies plan for extended remote operation, it is important that the hastily applied band aid will adhere for a prolonged period. This article considers how leaders can maintain the performance of their organisations most important asset, past the next month and back to business as we remember it. Perhaps even, better than we remember it.

We briefly consider herein the most relevant research based actions offered by occupational and neuropsychology which may be utilised to ensure sustained productivity whilst working remotely from home. The first section briefly takes stock of the past three weeks ‘virtual’ challenges in leading teams from home and the major factors which have made remote work especially demanding. We then consider how studies in psychological fields have sought to effectively remedy these virtual problems.

THE CHALLENGES

Reduction in supervision and managerial interaction

Managers often worry that employees will not work as hard or as efficiently if unsupervised at a remote location. Employees on the other hand, are usually concerned that reduced managerial support can result in their leaders becoming out of touch with their duties and needs. The former of these concerns should be placed towards the back of your to do list over the next few weeks. Recent (2019) research supports the concept that those working remotely with decreased supervision over time, depending on industry, often prove to be more productive. We are thus urged by the statistics to focus our efforts regarding this particular concern, upon how managers can best continue to support and maintain effective interaction with their teams.

Difficulties in sharing information

During the initial stages of remote working, getting answers to what should be simple questions can seem disproportionately difficult. This is a dynamic which usually represents less of a task related theme and is more based on interpersonal communication. For example, a coworker who is aware via daily interaction that their colleague is having a tough time or experiencing personal challenges, is more likely to view an uninformative or curt email as a by-product of their personal situation. Remote working can however encourage a narrower perspective of co-workers professional behaviour, on the basis that there is no mutual exposure to each others circumstances. Psychologists understand this concept as the ‘mutual knowledge problem’ which highlights the increased importance of promoting not only effective communication, but also social interaction on a remote level. Similar difficulties are also ascribed to our innate tendency as pack animals to automatically assign either an ‘in-group’ or ‘out-group’ status to other individuals. Research suggests that where we identify co-workers (potentially through sub-optimal interpersonal techniques) as ‘out-group’ we are more likely to misconstrue or act defensively during professional transactions.

Increased Anxiety

Qualitative studies show that a shift in environment can temporarily increase feelings of stress and physical tiredness. Indeed, several of my clients have reported feeling utterly exhausted and 'out at sea' during recent weeks of working at home. This could of course be due to a myriad of factors, including financial concerns, stressful environmental noise (kids), physical illness or domestic emotional challenges. New environments and a change in our daily activity are however well known to cause increased activity in parts of the brain we might not usually use. This often results in feeling more tired than usual, just as we would if we suddenly started doing a different set of excercises at the gym. The reason for this is that a surprisingly large proportion of our daily activities, from making our first coffee at the office to getting our lunch, are neatly committed to a subcortical structure known as the basal ganglia. This area and related structures act as the brains autopilot, responsible for amongst other things, habit learning. In allowing us to file away large amounts of familiar behaviours, other brain structures are left to deal more effectively with new or cognitively demanding tasks. Whilst our brains are very much designed to develop new neural pathways one day and cast them aside the very next, new tasks and environments will be processed in a less energy efficient way than our ritualistic ones are. Even if it is in our own homes.

Environmental distractions

It’s spring time, the windows may be open, the radio on and the joys of ‘remote schooling’ may well not be making for a harmonious work environment. No matter how experienced or adept we may be at multitasking or functioning in busy places, remote workers need dedicated workspace and adequate childcare to be effective. As an old hand at remotely finalising deals whilst reheating spaghetti and confiscating a nerf gun, I can begrudgingly attest to this impacting my performance over an extended period. Sadly a text book work environment at home is virtually impossible and a good manager will understand and accept that a sudden transition to remote work means that their employees will be operating in some rather make-shift environments.

Social withdrawal

There are various aspects of this hurdle. Some industries are more people focused and contain a larger number of extraverts and socially dependant personalities than others. Withdrawal from the motivation, affirmation and encouragement of co-workers, or indeed from the competition element, can tangibly impact an individuals morale and productivity. Employees can sorely miss those informal interactions, not to mention the advantage afforded by face to face negotiation. My own working style was forged in the organised chaos of the Lloyds Underwriting Room. We would perch, chat and negotiate contracts face to face with between 5 to 35 brokers and underwriters on any given day. Those who lead a crew of extraverts within an industry which comprises an integral element of social interaction such as this, are likely to experience demotivation in the short term. In the long term, research suggests that isolation can impact employees sense of ‘alignment’ and ‘belonging’ with their organisation, which in turn has been seen to impact retention of valued team members.

Similarly but irrespective of the sociability of particular industries, studies highlight that ‘mutual knowledge’ is also a significant contributor to the effects of social isolation. Without realising or consciously ‘coding’ for it, we overhear telephone conversations, are exposed to office chitchat and process emotional subtleties through tone of voice and body language. This allows for employees in an office space to empathise and share understanding of each others emotional or personal circumstances. After a few weeks of remote working however, our reactions will have ceased to allow for such factors.

Similarly, office spaces permit a greater array of positive social opportunities or pleasantries. If I witnessed (or was the recipient of) a cup of tea being gifted by the perpetrator of a previously rude or abrupt email - all might be forgiven. Humans are social creatures and negative bias is easily arrived at during isolation. We’ve all assumed a negative mindset at some time towards a person due to a slightly punchy email. After a few moments talking to the same person however, we are often somehow able to see the very same email in rather a different light. Our out-group categorisations are regularly re-calibrated to in-goup in an office setting. Opportunities to reconnect with co-workers or to re-affirm in-group status can however be rare when a team shifts from an office environment to a virtual one, inducing negative behavioural habits.

THE SOLUTIONS

Unless they have a well trained coach, a therapist, or a particularly enlightened partner, it is unlikely that many of your busy executives will have considered for themselves the potential productivity pitfalls associated with remote working. So how can we continue to support our teams through a sudden and extended move to remote working environments? Here are some of the most relevant empirically researched suggestions, which target the aforementioned challenges.

Initiate purely social interaction opportunities

At the risk of making what should be spontaneous fun into something uncomfortably clinical, studies support the importance of setting time aside for ‘informal conversations about non-work topics’ particularly in a remote setting. To some this comes naturally. To others it is agony - until it becomes the norm. Perhaps ‘empower’ your teams social butterfly (you know who that is) to organise this on a regular basis and ask all to attend. Whilst all teams need to take time to reconnect together, it's absolutely vital for the efficacy of highly social or extravert teams who have been abruptly separated and removed from their daily routines.

Some authors suggest that the simplest way to establish basic social interaction remotely is to make some time at the end of team calls just for non-work items. One of my clients likes to organise specific virtual 'drinks' meetings as separate on line events. Her assistant organises “care packages” often including takeaway food such as ice cream or popcorn to be sent to the teams individual virtual work locations, and all packages are opened during the conference call, simultaneously. To the inexperienced remote worker, these approaches inevitably sound awkward and contrived. However, research examining experienced managers of remote workers and remote workers themselves report that virtual events help reduce feelings of isolation and promote a sense of belonging.

Establish and stick to a routine

Having a disciplined daily routine will not only help you manage your daily tasks better, but will also help you feel less tired and stressed. The quicker we can develop a routine, the quicker we will commit a larger part of our daily activities to the basal ganglia, thus freeing up resource for trickier tasks. Timetabling a beginning and an end time to your day is an important start. Whilst your family may have some raised eyebrows, carry out the same activities, in the same place every morning. Wake and shower at the same time, get dressed in the same place, eat the same food and listen to the same radio station. If you usually go for a run in the morning, then do that. Remember also to include the social rituals you may have. If you are accustomed to a morning chat or meeting friends for lunch - build that into your day via video conferencing. Quite simply, the faster we commit processes to the habit learning region of the brain, the faster we will begin to feel less tired, less stressed and more equipped to deal with more cognitively challenging tasks.

Establish regular and predictable daily check-ins

This may seem like a draconian gesture and these days hugely unwelcome in the face to face world. Meetings can be an excuse to eat biscuits, drink coffee and malinger. In the remote world however, the game has to be played differently. These daily checkins need not be ‘en masse’, but should be a forum aimed at allowing each employee to understand that they do have a space to ask questions and get answers from you, their leader. Not always what you might want, but again - remote life is a different kettle of fish. The flip side of this coin as mentioned above - the concern that many managers have based around lack of supervision contributing to low productivity, is relatively unsupported. In fact research shows the contrary. This measure is thus all about leaders being kept aware of their teams needs and challenges. Whilst you may find yourself spending an extra hour chatting to various employees where you might usually not, the benefits to improving personal interaction will be numerous.

Establish clear methods of communication

Remote work becomes more efficient and satisfying when managers set expectations for the frequency, methods, and timing of communication for their teams. For example, “We use Zoom for daily check-in meetings and client negotiations, email or instant messaging when something is urgent and the team WhatsApp for anything social.” It's also important to let your team know exactly when you are available during the day. In the office, it's usually obvious, or is easily ascertainable where you’ll be. Working from home however there may be other commitments as many people are forced to change their normal routines. In a virtual working environment colleagues cant ask a PA or check the meeting room diary. Quite simply, our schedules may differ from those that we are used to in the office. For example “I’m making myself available to brokers early in the morning, so afternoons work well for internal phone or video conversations. ”. If you’re schedule has not changed from office life, still let your team know for the sake of encouraging open channels, employee comfort factor and clarity. Also remember to encourage team members to develop a healthy comms etiquette and practice. This isn't teaching granny to suck eggs. we all need reminders from to time to time especially around what is essentially a new and continuously evolving technology. It is here that leading by example can reap rewards. The goal is that all employees will be singing from the same hymn sheet as such, and should have the same expectations re communication methods and courtesies. If you have an HR or training department, empower them with this goal.

Make use of the newer, more challenging communication technology options

Whilst everyone in modern times is well versed in email, it is not an efficient substitute for the many forms of communication we assume throughout the business day in the office. Science tells us that we receive vital information from other humans in a variety of ways, one of the most important being visual cues (studies suggest that body language and facial expression account for 55% of communication with adults - far more with children). Thus, whilst video conferencing is often well outside of many of our comfort zones it pays dividends in bringing workers closer to their usual standards of communication performance. Video conferencing thus gives participants many of the visual cues that they would usually use in successful negotiations by facilitating the aforementioned ‘subliminal’ comms which we use habitually during our usual daily conversations. It also allows for increased “mutual knowledge” of coworkers, can eliminate the ‘out-group’ bias and also helps reduce the sense of isolation among teams.

Dedicate more time than usual to ‘listening’.

Various studies over the last 20 years have addressed the impact upon group behaviour of emotional contagion and what is known as the ripple effect. If a leader reacts to sudden ‘goal post move’ by exuding anxiety and panic, then so will their team. Psychological research into the function of mirror neurones supports a significant influence of emotional contagion upon both individual-level attitudes and group processes. Organisationally, employees exposed to positive leadership are consistently seen to exhibit improved cooperation, decreased conflict, and increased perceived task performance. Remember, around 55% of communication is non verbal, so begin with noticing your own reaction. In exploring this dynamic, it is suggested that leaders adopt a dual approach.

Firstly, repeatedly affirm your confidence and trust in your team. This in itself provides a motivating and calming effect on employees, as well as on yourself. PDEs (Public displays of encouragement) may not come easily for the average stiff upper lipped businesswoman, but extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. Simply telling your team “this is a curve ball, but I know you’ve got this” can inflate chests, raise chins and improve morale more than you might imagine. Secondly, a little empathy goes a long way in a crisis and remember, not everyone is good at change. Whilst it’s not your job to counsel or placate an anxious or unexpectedly floundering employee, a ‘coaching’ style of leadership is shown to be highly motivational during periods of abrupt adaptation. The majority of team members will not own up to struggling with new working environments, to the degree that you may not find out about it until it appears clearly on your balance sheet, or worse, through a reduced client list. One essential question therefore to ask your employees during a team conference call or one on one video call is a coaching style one: “How is this remote work situation working out for you so far?”. A group setting can be effective as strength in numbers can elicit courage and participation, especially if you yourself kick off with one of the challenges you have found. The exact setting however is a call for you to make in the knowledge of personalities present.

This dual approach may thus involve you removing your business hat for a moment. Do not interrupt your team. Once you have heard one or all of the comments, nothing conveys understanding better than following up with “so what I’m hearing today is….”. also try ending your summary with “And how do you see a way forward in this?”. The focal point of this meeting should specifically be to allow your employees to voice their successes and their challenges - specific to the new remote working style, and how they envisage improvement. Do use expressions which naturally fit in with your personality. As this may not be your usual brand of motivation, theres no need to invoke a Tony Robbins style mantra. Simple messages to your team which both acknowledge hurdles and affirm your faith in their overcoming, will achieve results. Many managers are surprised at how colleagues who are given the opportunity to reflect upon their challenges and their wins, will then go on to solve their issues, permanently, by themselves.

The various challenges presented by recent events have amongst other things, given us an opportunity to hone our capacities to adapt. This is not time wasted. Research has provided us with ways to keep our teams on target through periods of intense change. Inarguably, the solutions we devise and implement as a result will now stand our working practices in good stead for the future, far beyond the current crisis.

Naming 'The Dark Lord' of the Corporate World

Thu, 26 Sep 2019 09:13:15 GMT

Tackling Stress in Senior Executives

Whilst workplace stress is receiving a healthy amount of attention these days, a very particular group remain unattended to. For the majority of senior executives, accurate assessment of their own levels of stress continues to be overlooked. A destructive, yet understandable taboo persists amongst corporate leaders in both identifying and addressing their own overwhelming stress. Psychological research attributes this largely to the fact that executives themselves see any such admission as a sign of weakness. From time to time, a manager, HR specialist or an executive coach may pick up on some behavioural signs of severe stress, such as substance abuse, anxiety or severe tiredness. However, unless the intervening professional is either a medical doctor or has psychological training they are unlikely to be equipped to assess masked stress behaviours, let alone effectively encourage acknowledgement of the issue. Furthermore, coaches and HR specialists whilst helpful, are rarely trained in the psychodynamic protocols required to assist the executive in dealing adequately with concealed stress. Thus, senior executives require the support of professionals familiar with the areas in which executive stress often arises, and who are then able to evaluate veiled stress levels and promote self-awareness. Most crucially though, they must be able to do this in a group of people for whom ‘stress’ is simply not a topic for discussion.

Research suggests that the wellbeing of our corporate leaders is being neglected due to an unwillingness and inability to recognise and manage workplace stress. Our industry captains are trained at an early age in the art of concealing imperfections and later on, in obscuring professional struggles. After all, who would respect a leader who admitted to feeling tired, anxious or overworked in today’s competitive corporate environment? Surely a competent leader should be the ‘ideal’, void of all weakness and represent the epitome of strength? It is this common perception which necessitates self-deception and impression management tactics in leaders, and which deters senior professionals from seeking even secretive assistance. It is unrealistic however to expect people to cast off the natural human desire to be led by idealistically strong or perfect executives, or the desire of executives to embody that. We can nonetheless assist leaders in the discreet identification and recognition of this organisational enemy which has been shown to constrain both corporate and personal growth. So why and how should we approach the ‘unnamed scourge’ of the boardroom?

The challenge faced by executives and corporations due to stress is increasing under the perpetually evolving face of global business. Life in the fast lane is more challenging than ever. It now encompasses colleagues who work on opposite sides of the globe, relationships conducted solely electronically, frequent mergers and acquisitions, far flung loved ones and social media which demands a greater portion of our cognitive energy than our actual day jobs. Executives nowadays have a broad burden to bare. Professionals who experience stress related depression and exhaustion are worryingly common and well researched (Nyberg et al., 2015) with awareness raised only periodically by high profile cases such as that of the 2013 suicide of Zurich Financials CEO. No less than five top executives at the largest Swiss financial institutions took their own lives over a period recently of eight years. Understanding and promoting the psychological wellbeing of an organisations top performers not only avoids human tragedy, but also has a profound and more materialistic impact on a company. In 2012 as news was released that the CEO of AkzoNobel went on sick leave due to fatigue and work stress, the company’s shares dropped by 4%. The day his return was announced several months later, share prices rose by 3.7%. Senior executives well-being and health problems inarguably impact not only the support of employees, but also that of shareholders and investors. It’s also no wonder that research by a leading U.S University puts the cost of stress to American business at $344 Billion a year in medical bills and absenteeism. Thus, and as the social taboo surrounding stress in our leaders is not likely to disappear any time soon, stress management can and must be considered in all leadership performance forums. If not, and as history has foretold companies will reap not only human but also corporate misfortune.

As far as the executives themselves are concerned, it has been observed that this group have a tendency to wear ‘stress’ as something of a badge of honour: If you don’t have it, then you are probably not working hard enough. Senior executives have a propensity to acknowledge that stress is there, whilst forbidding themselves from acknowledging its true impact, to themselves or to others. “Got to suck it up” or “All part of the territory”. It is seen as normal for executives to survive on five hours of sleep a night, to be under constant pressure and to be glued to their emails every day of the week. This high performing, highly paid body of workers are thus particularly susceptible to stress and illness, but have neither the social permission, nor the time or self-awareness to identify and to deal with this dynamic. Thus, whilst executive stress is apparently ‘accepted’ it is nonetheless ‘normalised’ which further exacerbates the taboo: “Stress is normal for people like me, everyone else manages, so should I”. So how can performance professionals and leadership development interventions best take this issue in hand, allowing for the social requirement for organisational resistance and self-deception in executives?

Given the above landscape, most executive coaches and HR professionals are ill equipped to deal with executive stress. Performance Psychologists and those extensively trained in mental wellbeing are able to identify stress issues and particularly those relating to self-deception and the unconscious aspects of an individual’s perception at work. For example, research suggests that positive results are achieved through employment of a psychodynamic approach to stress in executives, permitting a more subjective examination of work and wellbeing. In other words, stress is a highly unique experience for each individual and is most effectively analysed when situated in the context of an individuals own life circumstances and experiences. After all, some executives may well enjoy or receive a relative ‘pay off’ from stressful situations. (Driver, 2014, Bricknell, 2010). A challenge, whether it be physical or emotional will include a neurological reaction – an adrenaline rush resulting in a potentially positive emotional sense of accomplishment. Many Police professionals or those in the Military opt to return to intensely stressful scenarios time after time as they profess to receiving emotional reward or subjective benefits to doing so. (Kets de Vries, 2010). So another question which a performance psychologists might ponder is how stress in executives can be harnessed and re-routed down just such a positive, versus a negative path. How can executives be trained to focus their perception of stress towards a mindset more a kin to ‘relishing challenge’ or ‘opportunity for positive change’ rather than ‘fearing failure’ or ‘be afraid of negative consequences’. Any psychology professional experienced in leadership psychology and applied neuroscience will tell you that such cognitive behavioural change is achievable. The potential for altering the pathway and impact of stress in an executive is vast, but only once it’s existence has been acknowledged and assessed.

Whatever the interventions employed in managing behavioural pathways relating to stress in corporate leaders, it is vital that professionals are able to employ tools which assist the executive in the accurate analysis of stress indicators, despite the existence of self-deception, impression management or poor self-awareness. Executive stress effects a group for whom self-deception is a common and often necessary survival technique. Performance psychology consultants will work with organisations to engage the requisite psychodynamic lens in identifying the infamous ‘Dark lord’ of the corporate world. The proper naming of which has a powerful dual benefit: improvement of both organisational performance and the personal wellbeing of a company’s most valued professionals.

A Humanistic View of Personality

Tue, 05 Mar 2019 13:49:10 GMT

The Rogers and Maslow Legacy

The humanistic approach in psychology developed in response to the deterministic dominance of behaviourism and psychoanalysis prevalent in the United States in the 1960s. Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers are two of the most influential names in Humanistic Psychology, both contending that the optimal psychological state for all humankind is self-actualization, an individual's potential within a synergistic society (Pearson & Podeschi, 1997; Winston, Maher & Easvaradoss, 2017). Self-actualization, however, can be inhibited by extrapsychic determinants (Francis & Kritsonis, 2006). According to Rogers, individuals have an innate self-actualising tendency which can be promoted or inhibited by the environment imposed on them. Maslow emphasizes that certain basic needs must be satisfied before a person can reach self-actualization or fulfilment (Maslow, 1943). These extrinsic and intrinsic drives underpin both personality theories, and frustration of the human tendency toward ultimate fulfilment, results in psychological maladjustment (Robbins, 2008). This phenomenological and idiographic approach to personality has courted considerable criticism suggesting that it reduces the complexities of human nature to individualistic simplicity, overwhelming cultural variability and the problem of evil (Acevado, 2018; Koltko-Rivera, 2006; Person & Podeschi, 1997; Kesser & Sheldon, 2000), while lacking in its pursuit of rigorous scientific methodology. This essay seeks to assess and evaluate the theories of Maslow and Rogers against the backdrop of these criticisms and investigate whether their humanistic approaches to personality can answer the charges levelled against them.

To provide the framework for this discussion, it is first necessary to provide a fuller explanation of the two theories under examination. Personality theorists attempt to construct a concept of human nature and from this basic framework, a theory of personality. While respectful of Freud’s psychodynamic therapy, Maslow preferred to examine the magnificence of human potential rather than the psychic origin of neuroticism and he criticised Freud for seeing only undesirable evil in the unconscious when it was also the origin of the very best of human ethics and values (Valiunus, 2011). Maslow proposed that people are born with instinctive needs that help development and self-fulfilment which he described as instinctoid needs, arranged in a hierarchy of pre-potency and ultimately responsible for influencing human behaviour (Malsow, 1943, 1954). Briefly, Malsow’s needs are arranged from physiological needs at the bottom of the hierarchy (most potent), followed by safety, love, esteem and finally self-actualisation. By satisfying the basic, deficiency needs (d-needs), the individual is able to focus on more social needs (b-needs). The satisfaction of one need will usually depend on the satisfaction of the previous more potent need. However, Maslow was aware that this would not always be the case. Behaviour is shaped by both personality and environment, including cultural and situational factors (Maslow, 1943). An environment that promotes opportunities for spiritual development free from economic and material factors, will I turn promote the self-actualizing tendency to reach self-fulfilment.

Similar to Maslow’s emphasis on environment, Rogers also proposed that the environment in which an individual develops is integral to personality development and self-fulfilment (McGraw-Hill, 1959). The phenomenological field of subjective experiences, how a person perceives their experiences, rather than how they actually might be, is the most influential factor (Rogers, 1959). An environment that offers unconditional positive regard will promote an individual’s actualising tendency, the ability to experience oneself in the way that one consciously is (Maddi, 1996). A child growing up in this environment will engage fully in this organismic valuing process and successfully internalise self-positive regard producing a natural match in subjective self-perception and ideal self-perception (Rogers, 1959). In contrast, development in an environment of conditional positive regard, where certain types of behaviour result in the withdrawal of parental love or harsh punishment, a child will learn to attach conditions of worth to his or her behaviour and rather than internalising positive self-regard, the individual introjects these desired values. The self-concept is then based on these introjected standards rather than organismic evaluation, disrupting the organismic valuing process and creating incongruence between the real and ideal self (Rogers 1961). As a result, those experiences that are in accordance with these conditions of worth will be perceived and symbolised correctly in awareness, while those that are not will be distorted and denied into awareness causing confusion, tension, anxiety and maladaptive behaviour (Rogers, 1959). The fully functioning person, with congruence between self and experience, is open to new experiences, expressed feelings freely, acts independently and trusts his or her own organism (Rogers, 1959). While the development of personality is an ongoing process, it is also subject to possible change, but according to Rogers the key point is self-acceptance (Rogers, 1961).

As discussed briefly above, Rogers and Maslow take a holistic and phenomenological approach to personality in which mankind is striving toward self-actualization. However, such emphasis on the self, free from reliance on others seems to promote excessive individualism and elitism, where only those growing up in the right environment with the ability to satisfy their basic needs, have a chance of self-actualizing (Lethbridge, 1986). Maslow’s more Marxist critics take a darker view of the self-actualized person, suggesting that Maslow is regenerating a new Social Darwinism (Shaw & Colimore, 1988). Animal groups are made up of individuals, but human groups are societies of persons interacting with each-other rather than simply interacting with oneself and Malsow’s needs theory does seem to imply an individualistic imperative that even Maslow admits could result in cynicism and nihilism (Maslow, 1982; Frick, 2000; Acevado, 2018). Rogers also emphasizes individuality and considers the infant to be the model of congruence and it is socialization that alienates us from our true selves (Rogers, 1961). Conditions of worth that distort our perceptions of our experiences result from statements of ideals and social norms (Maddi, 1996). However, although there does seem to be tension between individuality and collective action, Maslow refers to Alfred Adler’s “Gemeinschaftsgefuhl” as the self-actualisers feelings of identification and affection towards fellow man (Huber et al., 2000) and further suggests that self-fulfilment is found in a state of synergy, serving the social good while enhancing individual happiness (Valiunus, 2011). Malsow called this best synergistic society Eupsychia, a community of humanity’s best which suggests that Maslow was concerned with promoting the social good, referring also to the meta-motivations of self-actualisers to look beyond themselves to the greater good (Maslow, 1961). It is arguable that the idea of self-transcendence that Maslow was not able to finish before his death, could have provided an answer to his seemingly elitist humanism (Maslow, 1968). Rogers and Maslow both celebrate individuality rather than individualism (Person & Podeschi, 1997). Rogers’s Person Centred Therapy seems to work towards facilitating the individual to accept themselves in order to enhance society itself (Pearson et al., 1997). So, while Rogers and Maslow do promote individuality, it does not seem to be done in such a way that ignores the feelings of others or society in general, rather enhances the individual’s ability to contribute to the best society can be (Winston, Maher & Easvaradoss, 2017).

The concept of the individual self, as we have seen, is an integral assumption of the humanistic approach to personality, however personality traits are a dynamic and complex concoction interacting as a whole and what is positive for one person, may be negative for another (Miller, 2008). This is particularly true of cultural norms and variability. Maslow differentiated individuality from individualism, by defining individuality as a person’s uniqueness within society and the motivation to resist cultural pressures (Robbins, 2008). However, critics continue to assert that the individual cannot evolve synergistically without taking into account the culture in which they are embedded (Pearson, 1991). Heines (2003), found that self-actualization is foremost a function of American Society, noting that North Americans tended to view themselves in unrealistically positive terms whereas Japanese tended to view themselves less positively. Maslow proposed that his hierarchy of needs pertained to needs that were universally important and differences across cultures were superficial (Winston et al., 2017), for example whether infants are cared for just by their parents or by a village of adults, the universal need is security. In contrast, critics suggest that such a generic approach to personality development endangers the rich complexities of human nature by applying an oversimplifying uniform formula (May, 1996; Merleau-Ponty, 1995). Arguably, Maslow has instead created a framework within which one can identify significant goals and ideals without being lost in generality (Robbins, 1996; Bortoft, 1996). Maslow’s self-actualiser is motivated to achieve his potential, whether it be an artist, musician or philosopher (Maslow, 1968). Similarly, Rogers emphasizes the importance of the phenomenological field, subjective experiences, that we necessarily experience within our own society and culture (Kerbs & Blackman, 1988). Criticism relating to culture also focusses on the methodology of humanistic approaches. Both Maslow and Rogers can be criticized for their sample base in their development of their personality theories. Maslow began his research by first examining those he believed encapsulated the characteristics of a self-actualising person and arguably creating a theory from an already bias starting point (Acevado, 2018). While there has been some research to support Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Graham & Balloun, 1973; Ryan & Deci, 2000), the very characteristics upon which such research is based come from a pre-existing notion of what Maslow believed to be the best of humanity within his limited sphere of White Western culture. Rogers’s undeniable contribution to psychotherapy may have been limited to a specific populous that fit his model (Nietzel, et al., 1994). However, he can also be credited with opening humanistic psychology to empirical study and assessment by recording his therapy sessions (Ryckmann, 1993). Nonetheless, both theories were born largely within white western culture, but it should be noted that Rogers and Maslow intended for their personality theories to form a basis for further research and investigation (Valiunas, 2011; Robbins, 2008) and by providing a universal framework for the development of personality, this endeavour has been facilitated (Assor, Roth & Deci, 2004; Campbell, Rudich & Sedikidas, 2002; Shostrom, 1964).

An interesting parallel between Maslow, Rogers and culturalisation discussed above, can be drawn between innate self-actualising tendency and the inner state of perfection achieved by the enlightened person of Zen Buddhism and the sage of Taoism (Chang, 2018). A similar framework plays out in Western culture (Humanisitic) and Eastern culture (Zen Buddhism and Taoism). However, Chang (2018) suggests that unlike the enlightened person of Zen Buddhism or the sage of Taoism, Rogers and Maslow’s self-actualiser is more influenced by their society. Within the western culture of consumerism, the self-actualiser stands autonomous and free from the approval or disapproval of others (Maslow, 1954, 1970). If so, then how does Maslow account for any concept of evil that could underlie the characteristic of self-actualisers that allows them to transcend any feelings of guilt (Acevado, 2018)? Shame and guilt provide individuals with a moral compass that indicates where repentance or reparation may be required (Acevado, 2018). However, in the absence of such feelings, the self-approved self-actualiser can justify the ultimate end of evil rather than good sanctioning individualism and eradicating moral responsibility (Acevado, 2018). Maslow’s answer to this could lie in his later conceptualisation of self-transcendence, which puts aside the individual’s own needs and serve a higher purpose (Koltko-Rivera, 2006). Those who have reached self-actualisation, now find that they are motivated by meta-needs. Meta-motivations underlie healthy functioning and include the need to know and understand the environment. According to Maslow there are 18 B-values that need to be realised in order for the self-actualiser to remain healthy (Maslow, 1954) (Shultz & Schultz, 2016) and as proposed by Koltko-Rivera (2006) provides a universal application for the pursuit of the meaning of life. In answer to the problem of unchecked evil tendencies, Maslow suggests that failure to realise these meta-motivations can result in pathogenic outcomes and each is associated with a pathology and metapathology. Self-actualisers can become helpless and depressed though unable to identify the source of their distress (Shultz & Shultz, 2016). While Maslow provides self-transcendence as a buffer for any malign, immoral tendencies of the self-actualiser, Rogers would suggest that the therapy would offer the individual the unconditional positive regard that is required to ensure that personality development is redirected and adjusted to account for moral responsibility and regard for others (Rogers, 1959). In this way, both theories are able to address, if not answer, the potential for narcissism and cynicism within the ideal human personality.

In conclusion, the personality theories of Rogers and Maslow cannot fully be covered in an essay of this length, however, some of the main criticisms of the theories have been addressed. Culture and individualism have been repeatedly raised as problematic, however if the theories of Maslow and Rogers are seen as frameworks to be used universally, then there is considerable scope for application outside the Western world. The same can be said for the repeated criticism of unsatisfactory methodology. The idiographic approach of humanism creates a problem for ecological validity, but nomothetic approaches can be too generic. Rogers provided opportunity for the empirical study of his theory by recording his therapy sessions and Maslow has created the framework for scientific testing and both qualitative and quantitative analysis, by providing a set of characteristics that can be tested and measured across cultures. These two personality theories have sought to provide an ideal that we are all innately motivated to achieve, the ability to take on the anxieties as well as the joys of life.

BLOG: The Same, But Manageably Different...

Mon, 04 Mar 2019 13:43:26 GMT

Motivation: Getting The Best Out of Different Personalities

As Hutt W. asserts, ‘motivation is internal; people are responsible for motivating themselves, and they can't motivate you any more than you could motivate them. As any mentor, parent or executive will tell you, simply 'instructing' people to become motivated or engaged, rarely yields the desired, long lasting result. As leaders, teachers, parents, whatever your role, you may be responsible for creating an environment in which people can become motivated, and indeed, motivate themselves.’ That's all very well, but how does one create that magical environment or that communicative relationship which inspires just such motivation?

Essentially, what is required is more of a horses for courses approach - different people are understandably motivated by different things, and the way you communicate with, lead or inspire them should reflect this. Over 18 years working with various teams and City egos has taught me that whilst people are intrinsically different, they are however manageably and predictably different. Analysis of personality factors and their preferred environments via the DISC model is one method of improving chemistry, leadership, teaching skills and thus, of motivation. As a grossly simplified formula:

The D-Style

The D’s are motivated by an environment that gives them the opportunity to oversee something or at least being responsible for something - anything! D styles prefer an atmosphere where there is an opportunity for advancement, taking control of a project or a team and they enjoy working at a fast pace. They are task orientated and respond well to a leader, who is quick to respond in turn and is respectfully direct.

The I-Style

The I’s are motivated by a less formal environment where it’s acceptable to have some FUN getting their tasks completed. This personality style is outgoing, people orientated and persuasive and they like variety and a fast pace. They respond well to a leader, who is positive and optimistic who will publicly praise for a job well done.

The S-Style

The S’s are motivated by an environment where working together as a team is the order of the day. Participative, inclusive and striving for peace and harmony, S styles like to work towards a ‘win-win’ scenario where possible and seek to build relationships with others which result in loyalty and sincerity. They are reserved and people orientated, in turn, they respond best to a leader, who takes time to listen to others, appreciates teamwork and makes them feel secure.

The C-Style

The C’s are motivated by an environment where quality and excellence are both required and achieved. They are reserved, task orientated and like to get on with things in a logical, systematic and quiet manner. This personality style will try to influence others by presenting facts and data to prove their point. They respond best to a leader, who makes considered decisions, sticks to the facts, recognises the importance of rules and supports the need to strive towards perfection.

As a performance coach I often encourage my clients to apply DISC knowledge in attaining targets within their home or working life. This regularly inspires a tangible improvement in peoples ability to take control of motivating those around them, wether they be colleagues, partners, students, kids or sports team mates. If one of your goals, either professional or private, is to get the best out of just such people, then it’s important to remember that although people are different, if we slow down to understand their particular style of leadership or communication, they become predictably and rather more manageably different.

RESEARCH: Self-esteem And The Pursuit of Happiness

Mon, 04 Mar 2019 13:36:29 GMT

Exploration of self-esteems moderating and mediating role, in the relationship between strengths use and subjective well-being.

Note: For all diagrams and tables please see full research article.

Abstract

A large body of cross sectional and longitudinal research links strengths use to areas of sustained well-being and happiness. Related theory suggests that an individual’s use of strengths is an important predictor of self-esteem, whilst self-esteem in turn predicts unique variance in subjective wellbeing. This manuscript explores support and central reasons for the strongly supported concept that people who use their strengths find greater levels of happiness, or subjective wellbeing. The present study accesses a broad socio-economic cross section of participants in providing new information as to a possible moderating or mediating role of self-esteem within the relationship between these constructs. This analysis expands upon the question of whether or not strengths use relates to subjective well-being and looks in detail at an important aspect of ‘how’ and ‘why’ this relationship might exist. Results indicate that the predictive nature of strengths use upon happiness can be explained to a meaningful degree by increased levels in self-esteem owed to a robust mediating role. The discussion localises findings in the context of both clinical and counselling psychology, alongside consideration of political and social recognition awarded of late to the prominence of happiness studies. This research highlights the importance of self-esteem within the dynamic of positive constructs and seeks to enable health practitioners and psychologists from various fields to better devise valuable interventions in promotion of human wellbeing.

1. Introduction

The present analysis begins by considering why much research today contemplates subjective well-being and how the examination of happiness has evolved within psychology over time. This manuscript then analyses how it is most frequently measured and studied today, in the midst of growing social interest and importance in this paradigm. Leading on from subjective well-being, the origins of the concept of strengths use is discussed in reference to an established body of research which highlights the predictive ability of strengths use upon subjective well-being. It then examines how strengths use has been studied and measured with emphasis upon the difference between strengths knowledge versus their daily use. The position of self-esteem within this relationship is then addressed, alongside background to the often cited ambiguity over the general situation and role of this construct. The main paradoxes of self-esteem theory are considered in relation to examination of positive concepts such as those herein. The introduction subsequently extends to highlight important findings which suggest the location of self-esteem as having influence between these two dynamics either within a moderating or mediating role, before explanation of methodology and results.

The importance of subjective well-being

The original focus of psychology was not only upon the curing of dysfunction but also attended to the promotion of optimum human functioning (Wood & Tarrier, 2010). In more recent history however, the main concern of psychology has been the diagnosis and treatment of psychological illness, with a strong focus on the measurement and treatment of psychopathology. The post World War II years saw scant funding for research other than that relating to treatment of injury and illness, a trend which precipitated a more symptoms lead direction in both research and treatment for the proceeding 50 years. Indeed the current model dominating clinical practice as characterized in the DSM-V (American Psychiatric Association, 2013. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,) defines mental health as an absence of psychopathology. This approach, which largely overlooks the active promotion of mental wellbeing is often cited in literature as the disease approach to human functioning (Keyes, 2005). In reference to this, in the late 90s positive psychology, in developing onwards from the Humanistic tradition began to address 3 main concerns. Firstly, that there was little focus or research carried out regarding positive experiences such as subjective well-being (subjective well-being). Secondly, that there was a dearth of interest in examining personality traits and in particular the character strengths of those individuals who appeared to thrive. Thirdly, on a social level the study, identification and enhancement of the qualities of institutions which enable positive subjective experiences and resilience within individuals (Seligman & Czikszentmihalyi, 2000). In answer to these concerns, the study of subjective wellbeing in various spheres of psychology has made impressive and enduring empirical strides over the last 20 years. This recent drive towards the study and promotion of happiness by psychologists, sociologists and economists, represents more than a simple extension of the ancient Aristotelian search for eudaimonia, or ‘the good life’. Since the advent of positive psychology’s focus upon enhancement of wellbeing, the concept that well-being should be measured and studied alongside psychopathology has been repeatedly promoted (Greenspoon & Sklofske, 2001; Keyes, 2007). Far from a mere reformation of ancient philosophising applied to modern day life, those who analyse subjective well-being today often argue that full assessment of mental health should include assessment of subjective well-being. These endeavours are fuelled by the well documented concept that subjective well-being influences both physical and mental health (Deiner & Chan, 2011; Proctor, Maltby, Linley, 2010). Combined with this is the worthy assertion that as mental illness becomes more widespread within society, so the need for preventative measures via the development of mental wellbeing becomes of greater importance to psychology and to society (Seligman, Steen, Park & Peterson (2005). Consequently, the pursuit of happiness, or of subjective wellbeing and the study of its causes and contributors, is of wider impact than the search for ‘the good life’ or ‘Eudaimonia’.

Naturally, the development and study of such a construct requires definition and valid measurement tools. Happiness (subjective well-being) is a broad social paradigm regarded by researchers as a concept that includes both analysis of satisfaction with life alongside positive and negative affect (Deiner & Oshi, 2005). Current measures of subjective well-being are derived from the ambiguity that when answering the question of whether or not a person is happy, they may reply either in reference to their feeling in the moment, or their feelings about their life as a whole. It is the latter and broader form of questioning which psychologists have used predominantly in measurement of subjective well-being/ happiness. One of the first questionnaires to measure happiness was the Delighted-Terrible scale (D-T scale: Andrews & Withey, 1976), a single item 7 point Likert type scale which asks: “how do you feel about life as a whole?: Terrible 1 – 7 Delighted”. Whilst this scale is certainly simple to use and interpret, it is however impossible to examine its internal consistency. However, it does have a good convergent consistency in that it correlates well with other more diverse proceeding happiness scales. Another option has been to use the Subjective Happiness Scale ( http://www.ppc.sas.openn.edu/ppquestionnaires.htm ). This scale is structured around four statements on a 7 point scale. The first is a broad life satisfaction type statement, whilst the following three are comparison based questions such as “compared to most of my peers I consider myself: Less Happy1 – 7 More Happy”. This scale is consequently heavily dependent upon social comparison. One of the most popular happiness measures in the UK however is the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire (Hills & Argyle, 2002; http://happiness-survey.com/survey/) . Participants are asked to rate by strongly agreeing or disagreeing 29 items on a 6-point scale. Scales within this questionnaire however have no neutral midpoint. Content validity has also been severely criticised by Kashdan (2004) in that this scale contains items which measure various other specific antecedents or consequences of subjective well-being. Questions within the scale include statements relating overtly to the constructs of ‘agreeableness, ‘autonomy’, ‘extraversion’ and interestingly ‘self-esteem’ – without proposing a theoretical concept as to the reasons for their aggregations. The various shortcomings of the above happiness scales led to the consideration and popular use of a subjective well-being measurement which encompasses a more targeted rationale.

Research continues to support the concept that in order for people to experience happiness or subjective wellbeing (subjective well-being) they must not only like their lives, but also experience a greater level of positive emotions than negative ones. Happiness, or subjective well-being in broadest terms should thus involve a multidimensional evaluation of life, including cognitive judgments of life satisfaction and affective evaluations of emotions and moods (McGillivray and Clarke 2006). One of the most widely used and validated methods of measuring happiness today is the approach used herein. This involves collating data from both the satisfaction with life scale and the positive and negative affect scale (PANAS) (as provided in Appendix C and as detailed within ‘Measurements’ herein). This is done by subtracting the negative affect subscale within PANAS, from the amalgamation of satisfaction with life and the positive affect subscale of PANAS. Studies in happiness which utilise this approach acknowledge that both emotional affect and life satisfaction are vital components. Within subjective well-being therefore, life satisfaction reflects individuals’ perceived distance from their aspirations whilst emotional affect (PANAS) results from a balance between positive and negative emotion. subjective well-being is thus regarded as a state of wellbeing, of long duration which includes both the affective and cognitive component (Bruni and Porter 2007, p. xvii). This method of measurement avoids falling foul of dimensions which may be too simple, too comparative or too dependent upon other clouding constructs, whilst at the same time has demonstrated to have not only excellent convergent, but also internal consistency.

Subjective well-being is clearly important within mental well-being concepts, is significant in everyday lives and has undergone much empirically validation as a reliable construct. Happiness, or subjective well-being is a far-reaching and inclusive paradigm which is differentiated from and studied in isolation of other positive constructs. Previous research investigating strength use has considered its bearing upon other positive constructs such as that of satisfaction with life (Douglas & Duffy, 2014) which encompasses only a small element of happiness and the SWB measurement method. Whilst satisfaction with life examines global life satisfaction only, happiness contemplates the pivotal issue of an individual’s own assessment of his or her life whilst relating fully to the concept of both temporal or experiential happiness. Satisfaction with life is a component scale of subjective well-being and a separate paradigm. The present method of combining measures of life satisfaction with measures of happiness to create an aggregate subjective well-being score has in the past been justified empirically through consistently fair to good correlations. This highlights that whilst satisfaction with life and happiness are related constructs, they should however be considered as distinct and separate paradigms.

In addition to the benefits of using a composite scale to measure the broad construct of happiness, another key aspect of analysing subjective well-being is its ‘subjective’ nature. The reason that happiness is termed as having a ‘subjective’ element is crucially due to the view that it is the individual who can best assess their own level of happiness. To illustrate this, individuals for example who have recurring depression may have differing levels of happiness or subjective well-being, despite a chronic mental health condition (Macaskill, 2012). The subjective or introspective element is thus important in gaining a full emotional picture, where opinion based upon outwards behaviours only may otherwise have been misleading.

The increasing importance of accurately and relevantly measuring happiness as discussed above is apparent in the expanding are of emotion and happiness research today. In the wider field of general psychology, the study of emotions has been a rapidly growing area. In 2011 for example, Izard (2011) carried out qualitative research into the structure and purpose of emotions. The 34 eminent scientists within the field of emotions who were surveyed produced themes illustrating that emotions such as happiness have great importance in the motivating and organisation of cognition and action. National governments also have become interested in the study of positive emotions, having initiated research programs directed at encouraging national wellbeing. Nicholas Sarkozy commissioned a nationwide piece of research to devise an index of the happiness of French citizens in order to combine with measures of GDP in creating a broad index of the nation’s well-being (Easterlin, 2011). Similarly, the UK Office of National Statistics under David Cameron was commissioned to measure national happiness within the United Kingdom (Weijers & Jarden, 2013; Layard, 2011) which has led to the continued measurement of national happiness alongside GDP today. Continuing on a practical level, it has been seen that interventions devised through the study of positive constructs such as subjective well-being have indeed proven significant in reducing pathologies such as depression. (Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009). In more social terms, the extensive adoption and development in recent years of psychologically researched methods such as ‘scaffolding’, ‘circle time’ and ‘mindfulness’ further demonstrate the impact and practical implications of studies relating to subjective and mental wellbeing (Huppert & Johnson, 2010). Subjective well-being is an emotion or group of emotions which is thus not only of individual, but of social, political and broad academic importance today, in various economic and psychological spheres of study. A separate construct which has been studied vigorously alongside happiness is that of ‘strengths use’.

The benefits of strengths use and development of a scale of measurement.

As incidences and awareness of mental illness grow, the study of psychological human strengths has been supported empirically as an area which assists with improvement of well-being. Published research consistently suggests that people who use their strengths are happier (Linley, Nielsen, Gillett, Biswas-Deiner, 2010). Specifically, identification and use of psychological strengths have been supported in their ability to foster subjective well-being, resilience and in better coping with stress. (Martinez-Marti & Ruch, 2017; Seligman, Steen, Park & Peterson, 2005; Proctor, Maltby, & Linley, 2010). It was further found in 2010 that use of strengths vocationally and in a volunteering capacity related to heightened levels of well-being (Littman-Ovadia and Steger, 2010). Similarly, use of strengths at work (Harzer & Ruch, 2013) led to increased positive experiences. Thus, a wealth of empirical research supports the concept that strengths use relates to increased levels of wellbeing (Emmons & McCullogh, 2003; Otake, Shimai, Tanaka-Matsumi, Otsui & Fredrickson, 2006; Linley, Nielsen, Gillett, Biswas-Diener, 2010). Such research is consistently placed within a highly practical context.

With a focus upon prevention of pathology and in light of emboldening research as to the influence of strengths use upon wellbeing, researchers continue to examine the implications of strengths use in the development of interventions and counselling techniques. Underlying the concept of research questions such as examined in the present study, is the idea that usage of such positive traits, termed character strengths, serve as resources for people to use in the improvement of personal health and wellbeing (Proctor, Maltby & Linley, 2010). Many therapists today use strengths-based interventions to improve wellbeing and buffer against stress. Thus, various clinical and coaching methods have consequently been developed relating to the development of strengths and their uses over the last 15 - 20 years. Given the implications of strengths use upon subjective and other areas of wellbeing, alongside the existence of a vast array of related therapeutic techniques, it is argued that strengths analysis should therefore be part of well-being and health assessments (Wright & Lopez, 2002).

The starting point and basis for the aforementioned array of research was a cross-cultural examination of the predominant positive values found world-wide in 2004 by Peterson and Seligman (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). The study found 6 virtues which were broadly recommended across various populations: wisdom, temperance, justice, humanity, courage and transcendence. Under each of these 6 virtues was then arranged 4 character strengths such as hope, curiosity etc. thus comprising a list of 24 such character strengths in total. This forms the Values In Action – Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS; Peterson and Seligman, 2004), developed in order to identify and measure an individuals strengths, providing a DMV style assessment of such character traits. Ensuing empirical cross-cultural studies incorporating the VIA-IS linked character strengths cross culturally with subjective well-being. (Park et al., 2004). It would be challenging to find anything distasteful or culpable in the promotion of such exemplary traits as for example ‘temperance, ‘courage’, ‘justice’ wisdom and love. However, the pursuit and promotion of these virtues has been criticised by some researches as encouraging selfishness (Layard, 2016). Disapproval lies in the concept that said strengths or virtues are often sought or promoted with a focus on ‘subjective’ wellbeing or eudemonia, as a benefit to the self rather than due to the wider benefits of the acts themselves. In other words, nurturing a just or empathetic act for the sake of one’s own wellbeing rather than for the sake of the result of the act, is perceived as a less virtuous precursor. However, the debate over the potentially selfish motives of promoting positive and widely beneficial traits in order to produce a goal of subjective wellbeing, is outside of the realms of this discussion. Extant research into the identification and promotion of character strengths has nonetheless formed a sturdy basis for the following work into practical application of character strengths and their effects.

Following on from the work on basic analysis and identification of character strengths, the strengths use scale (as seen in Appendix C), was developed in 2007 for the purpose of research by Govindji and linley (2007) in which researchers found that self-esteem and strengths use both predicted unique variance in subjective well-being. Govindji & Linleys research underlined the importance of measurement and application of strengths use vs mere knowledge of strengths. A finding of note therein and one which impacted following studies into strengths, was that whilst identification and knowledge of strengths was not found to independently predict subjective well-being, strengths use did. It has therefore been deemed as appropriate over the last decade to examine strengths use as a separate and more influential construct in the prediction of happiness, than mere knowledge or identification of strengths. Studies since, involving the active use of strengths have supported not only increases in wellbeing but also in lower levels of depression (Mongrain & Anselmo-Matthews, 2012). Important longitudinal research has also suggested that subjective well-being has been seen to increase in students who had strengths based exercises integrated into their curriculum, versus those students who did not, over time (Proctor, Tsukayama, Wood, Maltby, Eades & Linley, 2011). Whilst numerous links between strengths use and subjective well-being have been empirically supported, there is a dearth of research into how and why these relationships may occur. In relation to this, Govinji and Linley suggested in 2007 that future research might wish to examine the existence of an interactive effect between strengths use and self-esteem. This study looks specifically at the interactive influence of self-esteem, in relation to the well-established predictive role of strengths use upon subjective wellbeing.

Self-esteem and its relationship with positive constructs.

In exploring the aforementioned hypothesis regarding self-esteem, explanations of this heavily studied construct have varied greatly over the last century. James defined it in 1892 as the ratio of ones’ successes over ones attempts. In 1967 Coopersmith defined it as a self-belief of capability, significance, success and worthiness (Harter, 1993). In reference to various definitions, self-esteem is commonly measured validly today using Rosenbergs (1979) self-esteem scale, as seen in Appendix C. This scale is frequently used in cross cultural research and has therefore been translated into many languages. Whilst many have defined self-esteem as a largely domain-specific construct (Harter, 1993), studies have also shown the idea of general self-esteem to be a relevant dispositional variable (Judge, locke, Durham & Kluger, 1998) with general application to many other psychological variables, as contemplated herein. Scientists have also been historically divided on the role of self-esteem, with some regarding its position as purely descriptive and non-causal, versus others bestowing a central and explanatory function (Branden, 1984, p.12). Further, whilst research has linked self-esteem to scholastic achievement in children, research by Harter (1993) found that scholastic achievement itself had the capacity to cause self-esteem, rather than vice versa. Given much conflict then regarding the placement and role of this construct, in 2003 the American Psychological Society Task Force on Self-esteem published a report (Baumeister et. al., 2003) on the state of this construct. The position of self-esteem according to Baumeister (2003, p.2) is as an individual’s perception, rather than a reality. High self-esteem and low self-esteem could be for example either accurate and well-founded or a distorted, even pathological sense of self. It is possible therefore for a person with high self-esteem to have a self-concept which is dramatically better than other peoples evaluation. Consequently, in light of the much contested role of self-esteem, several hypotheses from extant research should be borne in mind when considering this variable alongside positive constructs.

Firstly, on the basis that self-esteem has been described as ‘perception’ and not ‘reality’ (Baumeister, 2003) it is not surprising that self-esteem correlated as highly as .85 with self-report ratings of physical attractiveness (Harter, 1993). As it is unlikely that self-esteem and physical attractiveness are in fact measuring the same construct, as such a high correlation is said to indicate, it is likely rather that those with high self-esteem tend to speak highly of themselves across many domains. In support of this, a 1995 study (Deiner, Wolsic & Fujita) found that ratings by others of physical attractiveness correlated as little as 0.6. with the subjects self-esteem. These contrasting correlations together illustrate that self-esteem is less about reality than it is about thinking or speaking highly of oneself and implies a very high level of ‘subjectivity’ of this construct. (Baumeister 2003). When this concept therefore is applied to its impact upon happiness it may be of note that the contribution of self-esteem may further increase the subjective element of subjective wellbeing – highlighting or perhaps increasing a potential delusional element of perception rather than a real indication of the impact of self-esteem upon certain individuals happiness.

Secondly, in analysing self-esteem alongside positive constructs, researchers have also attended to the possibility of circular reasoning. Correlations between self-esteem and happiness have been seen to be extremely robust. A Cross-national study using a large student sample showed self-esteem to be the strongest predictor of happiness when compared to multiple other predictive variables, showing a .47 correlation (Deiner & Deiner, 1995). Another study using retired participants in the US similarly resulted in a high correlation between self-esteem and happiness of .58. It is hard however to pinpoint directionality relating to a construct which has been seen to operate frequently as both as an antecedent and an outcome. The question of whether self-esteem causes happiness, or happiness causes self-esteem, and how this comes about is an important consideration in research of such highly correlated variables.

Thirdly, researchers have traditionally held that low self-esteem is a trait which leads to aggressive behaviour and that those at the low end of the self-esteem score spectrum are more likely to display aggression (Horney, 1950). Conversely, Baumeister in 2003 found support for the theory that where the self concept is linked to narcissism, egotism and inflated self-esteem, threat to this perception by others is more likely to cause aggressive retaliation than low self-esteem would. However, subsequently research by Donnellan, Trzesniewski, Robins, Moffitt & Caspi (2005) found that low self-esteem caused heightened levels of aggression, and that this was irrespective of narcissism. Findings that negative constructs such as aggression surface at both ends of the self-esteem spectrum have very much swung back and forth in research over the last 10 years, maintaining debate over the influence of self-esteem as a ‘body builder’ construct. Thus, Findings in this sphere must be considered accordingly regarding the established effect of self-esteem upon the concept of a distinctly positive paradigm such as happiness. Self -esteem based aggression could conceivably lower scores of subjective well-being at the upper end of the correlation between self-esteem and subjective well-being. This could create an inverted ‘U’ association between these two variables, under Baumeister’s theory. Similarly, Grant and Schwartz (2011) have opined upon such variables providing ‘too much of a good thing’ and ultimately producing negative outcomes if possessed to a high degree. This debate should thus be borne in mind in analysing results for those with very high as well as very low self-esteem. Baumeister further suggests that in light of this, the potential for fostering narcissistic or egotistical traits should be considered in the development of interventions aimed at boosting self-esteem. There are suggestions for example that such methods should aim to achieve a more balanced and accurate level of self-esteem which combines appreciation of strengths as well as limitations, rather than simply aiming for indiscriminate growth. (Baumeister, 2004). In addition to elements of self-esteem research which may inform the present research questions, other aspects of this pivotal construct are closely attuned to the study of positive variables.

Very few studies have monitored self-esteem alongside positive constructs historically (Baumgardner & Corothers, 2009). Over the past 6 years however it has found a place more strongly embedded within positive psychological studies. This could have been due to debates as outlined above which may complicate studies in a burgeoning field such as strengths use. It has been after all a challenge to determine whether self-esteem should be examined as a variable which affects behaviour or is produced as a consequence of it. Researchers and clinicians now however see self-esteem in a context highly compatible with studies relating to wellbeing (Millner, 2012). In relation to this for example, expansion theory is also significant. Alongside the buffering, self-regulating function of self-esteem (consistency theory), the other perceived function of this construct in relation to helping the self to grow or actualize (expansion theory) (Pyszczynski, Greenberg, Solomon, Arndt & Schimel, 2004) is decidedly connectable to positive psychology principles. Self-esteem is frequently understood as a positive, predictive construct which also maintains interesting links to areas such as age and gender (Heppner, Kernis, Nezlek, Foster, Lakey & Goldman, 2008). Self-esteem is found to consistently correlate with happiness as a distinct variable and appears to be innately compatible with the study of subjective wellbeing. This with the caveat that extant theory should be considered, particularly relating to extremes of self-esteem, circular referencing and the deeply subjective or perceptional nature as set out above. In theorising therefore upon the location of this capacious paradigm, a firm grasp of extant theory is required.

The placement of self-esteem as a mediator or moderator in the relationship between strengths use and subjective well-being.

In attempting to unravel or refine the involvement of self-esteem in the relationship between strengths use and subjective well-being, there is both cross sectional and longitudinal research to guide theory in placing self-esteem as a moderator or mediator. In beginning with the proposed predictor variable, strengths use has been linked to self-esteem in that heightened levels of self-esteem were found in those who actively used their strengths (Minhas, 2010). Additionally, Proctor (2011) found that students who carried out self-esteem exercises experienced greater levels of subjective well-being. This correlation between strengths use and self-esteem has been supported in longitudinal findings (Wood et al., 2011) demonstrating that strengths use leads to greater self-esteem over time.

In approaching the link beyond the well-established path from strengths use to self-esteem as examined convincingly by Wood et al (2011), much support is found for a connection leading from self-esteem to subjective wellbeing. Self-esteem has been found to correlate highly with life satisfaction amongst a large sample of college students (Diener & Diener, 1995). Other studies have similarly found self-esteem to be a predictor of happiness related concepts (Zhang & Leung, 2002; Chen, Cheung, Bond & Leung 2006; Joshanloo & Afshari, 2011). Importantly, longitudinal methods have in addition demonstrated the predictive ability of self-esteem upon satisfaction with life, a large component of subjective well-being (Ye,Yu & Li, 2012). Despite concern over circular reasoning, temporal precedence has been proposed by longitudinal findings in support of the present research question which places self-esteem in between strengths use and subjective well-being, as outlined later herein. In further suggestion of such an arrangement Govindji and Linley found in 2007 that both strengths use and self-esteem predicted subjective well-being (Govindji and Linley, 2007). Research subsequent to this by Proctor et al. (Proctor, Maltby and Linley, 2010) found in a study of undergraduate university students that those who use their strengths, experience greater wellbeing and additionally that subjective well-being is related to both physical and mental quality of life. Proctors work expanded upon previous findings to suggest that strengths use was a unique predictor of subjective well-being when controlling for self-esteem and advised additional research to improve generalizability.

Whilst certain variables can be identified as predicting others in a linear model with regression analysis, such as that between strengths use and subjective well-being (Govindji, 2007; Proctor, Maltby & Linley, 2011) this study sought to analyse in greater depth two potential functions of self-esteem in this relationship, based on its suggested location between strengths use and subjective well-being. This manuscript examines firstly a potential ‘additive affect’ of self-esteem upon strengths use causing increased subjective well-being (moderation), and secondly, the eventuality that the relationship between strengths use and subjective well-being might itself be ‘explained’ by self-esteem (mediation). In undertaking this analysis, researchers also sought to recruit a wide socio economic spectrum of subjects. Both self-esteem and subjective well-being have been shown in previous studies to be impacted heavily by demographic aspects such as age, gender, relationship satisfaction and wealth or income (Headey & Wooden, 2004; Deiner & Biswas-Deiner, 2001 Erol & Orth, 2017; McMullin & Cairney, 2004). Previous research into both subjective well-being and self-esteem has acknowledged limitations in studies due to limited diversity in potentially important socio demographic figures. Many for example have utilised all student samples (Proctor, Maltby & Linley, 2011; Douglas & Duffy, 2015; Macaskill & Denovan, 2014; Govindji & Linley, 2007). The broader spectrum of participants herein may reduce skew due to lack of availability in data of such factors and provide a more representative cross section.

This study therefore set out to utilise a broad spectrum of adult participants per suggestions in extant research and diversify away from the trend in related work utilising student-based samples (Douglas and Duffy, 2015). It sought to fill a gap in current research in asking not only if, but how strengths use and self-esteem have an impact upon happiness or subjective well-being. Consequently, in examining the potential reasons for numerous findings that strengths use benefits happiness, it analyses two research questions:

1) To what degree would the study variables of strengths use, self-esteem and subjective well-being correlate within a more diverse data set?

2) Would the link between strengths use and subjective well-being be moderated or mediated by self-esteem?

2. Method

Research Design

A cross sectional study was conducted amongst a diverse adult sample in order to examine the role of self-esteem in the relationship between strengths use and subjective wellbeing.

Sample

Participants were 123 adults aged between 18 – 65 years (75 females, 48 males) from across the UK designed to allow for robust analyses of study variables. The mean age category of participants was 3.09 (SD = 1.14, range = 35 – 44 years) as shown in Appendix A. Participants were volunteers who completed the study questionnaire after being sent a link to the survey either via social media or by researchers’ contacts. The sample encompassed a wide variation in levels of education, income, marital status and employment (Appendix A: Descriptive Analyses). The sample comprised of mostly white British adults (71%), and included white European (9%), other white background (9%), Indian (3%), White Irish (2%), Other Mixed Ethnic background (2%), Chinese (1%), White Asian (1%), Caribbean (1%) and Chinese (1%). The mean completion time of the questionnaire was 9.6 minutes.

Materials

The below psychological scales and socio-demographic questions were used in a ‘Survey Monkey’ questionnaire (as seen in Appendix C) sent to participants using an email link to the survey website and via social media such as ‘Instagram’.

Strengths Use Survey (Govindji & Linley,2007)

strengths use is a 14 item, self-report, 7-point Likert scale that measures individual strengths use with answers ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. For example: “I always play to my strengths” and “Using my strengths comes naturally to me”. The internal consistency was found to range from 0.95 to 0.97 with a test – retest reliability of 0.84 (Wood et al., 2011). In strengths use instrument development studies the alpha has been reported at 0.95 and has been shown to correlate with appropriate criterion measures such as the Rosenberg self-esteem scale (r = 0.56) and other constructs such as subjective well-being (r = 51) (Govindji and Linley, 2007).

Life Satisfaction (Diener et al., 1985)

The satisfaction with life is a 5 item 7-point Likert scale with answers ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Questions include “The conditions of my life are excellent” and “so far I have gotten the important things I want in life”. Instrument development studies show the satisfaction with life to have internal consistency of 0.87 and test – retest reliability of 0.82. The test has been found in many studies to correlate in expected directions with appropriate variables such as self-esteem (Arrindell et al). Note: subjective well-being = (positive affect + satisfaction with life) -negative affect (Diener et al., 1985):

Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS, Watson et al., 1988)

This is a 20 item, self-report measure made up of two subscales: ten Positive and ten Negative items(PANAS: Watson et al., 1988). The positive subscale asks to what extent an individual has felt a certain way, such as “strong”, “determined”, “inspired” (Positive Affect) or “distressed”, “upset”, guilty” in the past week. Answers are on a 5-point Likert scale and range from very slightly to very much. PANAS has been shown to correlate win expected directions with relevant constructs. For PA, internal consistency has ranged from 0.86 to 0.90.

Subjective Wellbeing Measurement

Composite subjective well-being variables were calculated by subtracting the negative affect subscale of PANAS, from global judgements of life satisfaction (satisfaction with life), per previous research (Proctor, Maltby, Linley, 2011)

Rosenberg self-esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1965)

The Self-esteem is a 10 item, self-report, 4-point Likert scale asking questions such as “I certainly feel useless at times” with answers ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Internal consistency reliabilities range from 0.80 to 0.92 with test – retest correlation reported at 0.82 (Sam, 2000).

Procedure

The Survey Monkey App was used to create an on-line questionnaire and to record data prior to transfer to SPSS. A wide variation in participants was achieved by recruiting adults from personal contact lists and randomly via social media. A consent form, alongside privacy and confidentiality information was agreed to by each participant within the online the survey prior to being permitted to progress to the questionnaire section (Appendix C ). Completed questionnaire data was transferred to SPSS. 5 items of the Self-esteem scale were subsequently reverse coded and a new mean self-esteem variable was created in order to insure that a high score would indeed signify high self-esteem. Mean scores were then computed for all other relevant variables. Positive Affect and satisfaction with life were then added and from this negative affect was subtracted in order to compute the subjective well-being variable (Sheldon & Elliott, 1999; Deiner and Lucas, 1999) and standardised. After data preparation, initial analysis of descriptives, box plots, scatter plots and data cleaning was carried out (Appendix A). Analysis of reliabilities using Cronbach’s alphas and intercorrelations was undertaken (Appendix B). Following this moderation and mediation analyses were completed in order to study the nature of involvement of self-esteem in the relationship between strengths use and subjective well-being. Whilst It has been possible traditionally to conduct both moderation and mediation analysis in SPSS using macros or by following a manual process, the PROCESS dialogue box was used to conduct multiple regression analyses and simultaneously assess for moderating and mediating relationships, as illustrated in the Analysis section later herein. Finally, further regressions were carried out for the purposes of comparison with previous studies which used slightly different methodology as traditionally required in standard moderation and mediation analysis (Appendix B).

Ethics

Permission was granted by the BPP ethics committee after full proposal review. The survey was structured such that participants were only permitted to proceed from the survey information page to the questionnaire itself once they had acknowledged all patient information re anonymity, data use and right of withdrawal, and given relevant consent, as seen in Appendix C.

Analysis

In analysing the potential mediating or moderating role of self-esteem, the PROCESS custom dialogue box file (Hayes, 2012) was installed and integrated into SPSS software. This dialogue box automates and integrates the traditional multi step, manual method for carrying out both moderation and mediation analyses. This software thus initially conducts linear regressions to analyse predictive qualities between variables and then assesses the existence of either an ‘additive’ effect (moderation), or an ‘explanatory’ effect (mediation) upon the relationship. Due to recent developments in analytical method and as the distinction between moderation and mediation models is often perplexed, both the concepts and analytical methods used in this research are clarified herein.

Moderation

Whilst previous research which contemplates relationships between the present variables utilises regression analyses to look only at predictive relationships, moderation analysis examines the ‘combined’ effect of multiple variables on an outcome variable. When a new predictor variable such as self-esteem is included and potentially ‘combines’ with strengths use to have a joint effect upon subjective well-being, a moderating effect is observed, as conceptualised in Figure 1.1. If it is found for example at low levels of self-esteem that there is a small association between strengths use and subjective well-being, but at high self-esteem that there is a greater association between strengths use and subjective well-being, then we would say that self-esteem moderates the association between these two constructs. Conceptually therefore, a moderation model will assess if and the degree to which the relationship between strengths use and subjective well-being changes, as a function of self-esteem.

Moderation analyses in SPSS traditionally involved manual creation of new variables via the ‘compute’ command, followed by centring or transforming variables into deviations around a fixed point to avoid uninterpretable predictors associated with the interaction effect. Interaction variables would customarily then need to be computed manually via multiplication of the predictor variable and the moderator (strengths use x self-esteem). Regression outcomes of the strengths use (predictor) and self-esteem (moderator) upon subjective well-being would then be computed alongside the interaction outcome. If the interaction of strengths use x self-esteem is found to be a significant predictor of subjective well-being then a moderating effect has occurred. In practice, moderation analysis occurs using various regression analyses. The practical (or statistical) moderation process as just discussed is thus illustrated in Figure 1.2, with a slightly different diagram than is used to highlight the conceptual effect. The next step traditionally was then to refine the exact nature of the moderator, by assessing the impact of self-esteem as the moderator at various levels or strengths, using slopes analysis ( Aiken & West, 1991). However, whilst the statistical procedure remains the same today the PROCESS custom dialogue box (Hayes, 2012) was used to carry out these traditionally manual tasks by automatically a) centring predictors, b) calculating the interaction term and c) computing simple slopes analysis.

Mediation

Rather than simply producing a ‘combined’ effect upon an outcome variable, in mediation the relationship between a predictor and an outcome is instead ‘explained’ through their involvement with a third ‘mediating’ variable. The present study thus also examined whether or not self-esteem is a variable which operates as a potential mechanism through which strengths use can alter subjective well-being. Importantly when the effect of self-esteem is removed therefore, the relationship between subjective well-being and self-esteem may even disappear. Figure 1.3 illustrates how a mediated relationship functions, in that a positive relationship between strengths use and subjective well-being can be explained by the presence of self-esteem. This model would potentially suggest that the relationship between strengths use and subjective well-being is not a direct effect, but operates instead through a reduction in self-esteem.

Mediation statistical analyses has also historically utilised a set of regressions, but requiring 4 conditions in order to demonstrate mediation. These are: a) strengths use must predict subjective well-being; b) strengths use must also predict self-esteem; c) self-esteem must in turn predict subjective well-being and d) The relationship between strengths use and subjective well-being must be ‘reduced’ when self-esteem is included in the model. Prior to the availability of PROCESS These 4 conditions were tested manually using 3 regression models (Baron & Kenny, 1986): 1) prediction of subjective well-being from strengths use; 2) prediction of self-esteem from strengths use; 3) prediction of subjective well-being from both strengths use and self-esteem. Mediation would then be seen if the outcome is predicted less strongly in regression model 3, than in model 1. Following this a Sobels test is carried out to determine significance. However, manual method just described of comparing the strength of prediction between the indirect vs indirect pathways is criticised (Field, 2012). This study therefore utilised the more recent method of employing the PROCESS dialogue box within SPSS, in lieu of a manual or macro based approach (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). The PROCESS dialogue box enabled analysis of mediation regressions and comparisons automatically (Hayes, 2012). It is noteworthy that in place of a Sobels test, the PROCESS dialogue box calculated confidence intervals for the indirect effect based on bootstrapped standard error (Efron & Tibshirani, 1993). The method used herein was elected as it is deemed preferable due to its increased focus upon examining the ‘degree’ of mediation found, rather than simply looking for significance as within a Sobels test. (Field, 2012).

The present study conducted both moderation and mediation analysis in order to examine whether self-esteem varied the strength or direction of the relationship between strengths use and subjective well-being, or whether a positive relationship found between these variables can be explained by (or operates through) the presence of self-esteem.

3. Results

Primary Analysis

Outliers were assessed using box plots (Appendix A) and normality was analysed using descriptive statistics and visual histogram inspection (Appendix A). Variables showed few extremes and no outliers were removed. Non-demographic data was deemed parametric in nature, showing only minimal skewness and kurtosis, as shown in Appendix A and Table 1, with no detection of violations of assumptions for proposed analyses. Statistics were reported with a two-tailed significance and with alpha levels set at 0.05, unless stated otherwise. Scatter plots were produced in order to visually assess the nature of initial relationships between study variables (Appendix A) and revealed no notable deviations from extant theory. Cronbach’s alphas were calculated and all study variables were shown to have high reliabilities as seen in Table 2. Subsequently the two research questions regarding 1) correlations and 2) mediation and moderation properties of self-esteem, were addressed.

Table 3.1

Descriptive statistics

	N	Mean	Std. Error of Mean	Median	Std. Deviation	Skew	Std. Error of Skewness	Kurtosis	Std. Error of Kurtosis
Strengths use	122	4.96	0.11	5.14	1.26	- 0.34	0.22	- 0.08	0.44
Self-esteem	121	3.53	0.05	3.50	0.52	- 0.19	0.22	- 0.25	0.44
Subjective wellbeing	124	6.44	0,21	6.90	2.30	- 0.68	0.22	0.03	0.43

The strengths use, satisfaction with life, positive affect and self-esteem scales all had high reliabilities when tested within the present study. All Cronbach’s a > 0.86 as in Table 1.

Table 3.2

Reliabilities

	Cronbach’s a	N of Items
Strengths use scale	0.90	14
Self-esteem scale	0.88	10
Satisfaction with life scale	0.89	5
Positive Affect scale	0.90	10
Negative Affect scale	0.86	10

3.1. The relationship between strengths use, self-esteem and subjective well-being.

Following preliminary analysis, Pearson’s correlation coefficients between study variables were calculated within a matrix using SPSS as shown in Table 2. Strong correlations were found between all variables, with subjective well-being and self-esteem (self-esteem) showing the strongest correlation with each other (r = 0.73, p = 0.00).

Table 3.3

Intercorrelations between study variables

	Strengths use	Self-esteem	Subjective wellbeing
Strengths use	-	0.65	0.69
Self-esteem	-	-	0.73
Subjective wellbeing	-	-	-

All correlations are significant at the 0.01 level

3.2. Moderation and mediation of self-esteem in the relationship between strengths use and subjective well-being.

Having found support both within our dataset that strengths use and self-esteem are both significant predictors of subjective well-being, and also that strengths use predicts self-esteem, moderation and mediation analyses were then used to explore how these constructs may interact. The next research question asked whether self-esteem combined or interacted with strengths use to alter either strength or direction of the relationship in a moderating role. It then examined whether strengths use actually operated via self-esteem itself, in order to explain levels of subjective well-being via a mediating role.

3.2.1. Moderation analysis

Moderation analysis using the PROCESS custom dialogue box for SPSS revealed that the relationship between strengths use and subjective well-being was not moderated by self-esteem. self-esteem did not itself affect the direction or strength of the relationship which strengths use has with subjective well-being in our sample. b = 0.098, self-esteem = 0.227, t = -0.434, p = 0.665 as seen in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4

Linear model of predictors of subjective well-being

	b	self-esteem B	t	p
Constant	6.51	0.15	44.14	0.00
Strengths Use (Centred)	0.61	0.16	4.11	0.00
Self-esteem (Centred)	2.10	0.32	6.60	0.00
Strengths Use x Self-esteem (Interaction)	-0.10	0.23	-0.43	0.67

3.2.2 Mediation analysis

Mediation analysis found that self-esteem did act as a mediator between strengths use and subjective well-being. As bootstrapped confidence intervals did not contain 0, there was deemed to be a significant indirect effect of strengths use upon subjective well-being through relationship commitment by self-esteem, b = 0.5567, BCa CI (0.357, 0.779). This represents a relatively sizeable mediating effect, k2 = 0.309, 95% BCa CI (0.204, 0.426) as shown in Table 3.5. The model suggested that the relationship between strengths use and subjective well-being is therefore not a direct effect but operates instead through a reduction in self-esteem. As noted previously, within a mediation model, where an indirect effect increases (the effect including the mediator) the new direct effect between strengths use and subjective well-being will necessarily decrease. Our results demonstrate therefore that strengths use significantly affects subjective well-being through self-esteem, with self-esteem acting as a substantial mediator.

Table 3.5

Indirect (mediated) effect of self-esteem upon the relationship between strengths use and subjective wellbeing

Self-esteem

b/k

self-esteem

Indirect effect ( b )

0.56

(0.36, 0.78)

0.11

Standardised indirect effect ( k)

0.31

(0.20, 0.43)

0.05

Supplemental regression analyses were also carried out separately in order to compare and verify findings with previous research which used the manual method of mediation analysis, prior to creation of the automated process developed by Preacher & Hayes (2012), as seen in Appendix B.

4. Discussion

Whilst previous studies have examined the predictive abilities of strengths use and self-esteem upon subjective well-being, the present research examined not only correlations between variables, but also utilised contemporary analytical methods (Hayes, 2012) to assess the specific role of self-esteem within this relationship. In relation to the first research question as to the degree to which study variables would correlate within a more diverse data set, elevated scores of strengths use were unambiguously connected with greater levels of self-esteem. Strengths use and subjective well-being similarly showed a strong positive correlation as seen in previous research (Govindji & Linley, 2007; Proctor et al, 2011). The present study thus emphasises the strengths of correlational links between these three variables and continues in addressing a likely reason as to how these relationships may function.

In consideration of extant research, the second research question then addressed a possible moderating or mediating role of self-esteem upon the existing relationship between strengths use and subjective well-being. Whilst no moderation effect was found, mediation results established that self-esteem partially mediates the link between strengths use and subjective well-being to a meaningful degree. In interpreting these results, findings indicate it unlikely that high levels of strengths use automatically cause levels of happiness (subjective well-being) irrespective of self-esteem. Findings suggest rather that strengths use leads to other affects (which include self-esteem) which if not present can undermine the effect of strengths use on subjective well-being. This model would suggest that the relationship between strengths use and subjective well-being is not a direct effect therefore, but that it operates instead through a reduction in self-esteem. A potential rationale for the relationship between strengths use and subjective well-being as partially explained by self-esteem, is perhaps that individuals who are able to utilise their strengths more often, experience a greater level of positive feeling towards themselves and their abilities. This may then lead to superior levels of self-esteem. In turn, self-esteem contributes to and indeed partially explains greater levels of happiness. There are several further implications and considerations which should be highlighted in digestion of these results.

Findings bring to the fore the importance of self-esteem in the study of positive constructs such as happiness and other well-being measurements. Extant theory regarding the ability of strengths use to lead to higher levels of self-esteem (Minhas, 1020; Proctor, 2007) is reinforced and the predictive nature of self-esteem upon subjective well-being (Chen, 2006; Joshanloo, 2011) is emphasised. Accordingly, the important place of self-esteem in relation to various positive constructs and studies relating to happiness and wellbeing is underlined. On a more conceptual level increasing support has been found herein for the role of self-esteem within human psychology as having an explanatory and central capacity (Branden, 1984) versus the purely descriptive, non-causal role which other researchers have suggested is provided by this construct.

Given the recent return of both science and government (Weijers & Jarden, 2013; Layard, 2011) to the original dual focus of not only the remedying of dysfunction but also the promotion of optimum human functioning, the practical applications of findings such as these within several domains are broad. In clinical practice this knowledge can inform interventions for patients suffering with pathologies such as depression (Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009). Additionally, counselling and coaching psychologists often use character strengths and self-esteem methods as resources to help individuals deal with adversity and buffer against stress. Combined with extant theory and future research, this study adds to knowledge of central pathways leading to happiness and the crucial involvement of self-esteem in such therapeutic practice. Treatments can thus be devised which synthesize with these known pathways in aid of improved mental wellbeing and the creation of preventative therapies. Such practical implications can in turn embolden the return to a dual factor model of mental health assessment and improve upon the current ‘disease approach’ to mental wellbeing (Greenspoon & Skolfske, 2001: Keyes, 2007).

In addressing considerations relating to self-esteem, future research may also wish to explore the idea that the relationship which self-esteem has with subjective well-being may be concave down (inverted ‘U’ shape). Our findings did not support a negative impact upon subjective wellbeing of those with high self-esteem scores. However a larger sample size which includes a presence of extremely high self-esteem individuals may enrich Grant and Schwartz’s ‘too much of a good thing’ theory (2011). In further considering the concept of ‘body builder’ constructs, there may be merit in exploring strengths theory, in virtues or strengths which whilst in moderation assist with positive well-being, if possessed to a disproportionately high degree may have negative impact upon happiness or mental health. In this line of study, the distinction between well-being and subjective well-being would be crucial. Given the subjective nature of both happiness and self-esteem, it may be necessary to measure in future not only subjective well-being but also other less subjective areas of well-being to avoid ‘delusion’ impacting well-being results (Baumeister, 2004).

Another area of implication which this study may have is in the development of current happiness scales. Self-esteem has been seen herein to hold an important mediating or ‘explanatory’ role between strengths use and happiness. These findings may thus provide a stimulus for a closer re-examination of a rationale for inclusion of concepts such as self-esteem within its measurement questions. Kashdan (2004) criticised the oxford happiness scale heavily for its inclusion of items which incorporated without rationale, distinct concepts such as self-esteem, agreeableness, autonomy and extraversion. Given confirmation herein of the explanatory role of one of these variables (self-esteem) in conjunction with happiness, researchers may wish to examine the mediating properties of remaining variables as aggregated within the oxford happiness questionnaire. Such future results may proceed to embolden theory relating to integration of such constructs previously criticised within the oxford scale.

The present research had several limitations. Firstly, due to the studies’ cross-sectional nature it was not possible to determine strict causal relations. In relation to this concern, Maxwell et al (2011) opined that mediation effects seen within cross sectional data may not be reliable or indeed significant when tested longitudinally, despite previous cross sectional findings suggesting cautious interpretation until longitudinal testing. That said however, the sequential structuring of variables and basis for this research is founded upon several pieces of longitudinal research. For example, Wood (2011) found that strengths use led to increased self-esteem over time and Ye (2012) established longitudinally that self-esteem has a predictive effect upon satisfaction will life, the cognitive component of subjective well-being, thus perhaps allaying scepticism over the present cross sectional methodology. A longitudinal design replicating this investigation would lend more weight to these findings and provide an even firmer platform from which to examine other combined effects from constructs which may also impact the important outcome variable of happiness.

Secondly, whilst the sample size was adequate in relation to the quantities of variables and methodologies used, a larger cross section would have been desirable to ensure an even greater power and diversity amongst the sample. Whilst the sample was slightly skewed in terms of gender towards females, with little assortment regarding ethnicity, there was good range in terms of age, levels of education, income, marital status and employment. This data set has therefore permitted good generalizability amongst the present findings and could be used to further analyse relationships between age and wage level as suggested in past research (Govinji & Linley, 2007). However, a larger cross section may allow for further mediation analysis pertaining to relevant demographic variables. Given that past research has cited self-esteem and subjective well-being as constructs vulnerable to age, income, relationship contentment and job satisfaction (Headey & Wooden, 2001; Deiner & Biswas-Deiner, 2001, Erol & Orth, 2011; McMullin & Cairney, 2004) on-going research could examine the operation of this relationship further by using a ‘moderated mediation’ approach to examine how such important demographic variables may interact in the link between self-esteem and subjective well-being. Equally, as diversity of socio-demographic data is present herein, further analysis could be carried out which controls for variables already gathered such as age, income, gender in order to gauge the impact of such social factors upon various positive constructs. The importance of socio-demographic variables amongst self-esteem and subjective well-being highlights one of the strengths of this research, as being its’ participant diversity. Previous research using predominantly student samples (Proctor, Maltby & Linley, 2011; Douglas & Duffy, 2015; Macaskill & Denovan, 2014; Govindji & Linley, 2007) may thus be subject to very homogeneous age, income and relationship status. As these are variables known to impact both self-esteem and subjective well-being the broader spectrum of participants in the present study may have produced higher mean self-esteem and subjective well-being scores herein, based upon higher levels of age and income (Headey & Wooden, 2001; Deiner & Biswas-Deiner, 2001). Interestingly, this may be exemplified in the supplemental regressions carried out as shown in Appendix B which resulted in higher coefficients than those studies using the same variables with students alone. This may be noteworthy on a practical level as further examination could lead to identification of interventions which may assist particular groups within society in achieving greater mental well-being.

Thirdly, the reliability of self-report measures in relation to these constructs can often be questioned due to social desirability response bias (Van de Mortel, 2008). In addition, self-esteem is often a skewed concept due to the very nature of people having high self-esteem potentially inflating their own self view (Baumeister, 2005). Strengths use may also be open to less accurate self-reporting given that people do not always know what their strengths are to begin with (Seligman, 2002). Not necessarily having carried out strengths assessment interventions prior to the survey may mean it less likely that individuals can accurately report their strengths use. It is possible that future studies involving strengths use may benefit from prior inclusion of the VIA-IS exercise in order to first highlight an individuals strengths. As a 240 item exercise, including the VIA-IS would involve a considerably lengthier questionnaire. Whilst the strengths use scale has been shown to have good criterion validity, high internal consistency and strong test-retest reliability, a pilot study which compares strengths use responses both before and after completing the VIA-IS could determine the need for inclusion of the VIA-IS as an additional pre-measurement in strengths use studies. Additionally, despite criticisms of self-report measures and of the deeply subjective nature of happiness, the subjective element has been seen as crucial in the accurate research of subjective well-being, with self-report methods acting as a vital element of the detailed study of happiness (Macaskill, 2015).

5. Conclusion

These findings pave the way for further evaluation of other mediators or moderators affecting the demonstrably important link between strengths use and happiness. The importance of understanding and promoting subjective well-being at both an individual and societal level has been expounded and acted upon by various national governments – the implications of happiness and mental well-being upon GDP for example having been well understood by various leaderships. Thus, the demand for in depth analysis of contributing variables as provided within this study, and hopefully within proceeding research, will enable mental health practitioners, coaches and therapists to better understand pathways to subjective well-being. This will in turn allow them to devise the most effective interventions in support of wellbeing across various socio-demographic groups. The present study’s findings could be helpful to clinicians in understanding the mechanisms which contribute to lower subjective well-being in combatting pathologies such as depression. The introduction of psychologically researched concepts and activities such as circle time, scaffolding and mindfulness into schools and institutions worldwide has improved aspects of mental welfare in recent history. It is vital therefore that happiness findings such as those herein continue to be translated into tangible tools which can then be brought forward into domains where society can benefit. Happiness is a construct which has been seen to affect both physical and mental welfare and this research sought to refine contributing factors to enable development of not only curative but preventative techniques. This manuscript contributes to knowledge of positive concepts examined within fields of personality, counselling, clinical and social psychology and draws a spotlight upon the importance of self-esteem in consideration of such positive paradigms. This research further supports the model that happiness and related variables should be measured and evaluated in conjunction with mental well-being assessment and should involve consideration of factors relating to self-esteem.

REFERENCES :

Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions . Sage.

Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Americans’ Well-Being: Specific Life Concerns. In Social Indicators of Well-Being (pp. 249-281). Springer, Boston, MA.

Arrindell, W. A., Heesink, J., & Feij, J. A. (1999). The satisfaction with life scale (satisfaction with life): Appraisal with 1700 healthy young adults in The Netherlands. Personality and individual differences , 26 (5), 815-826.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology , 51 (6), 1173.

Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles?. Psychological science in the public interest , 4 (1), 1-44.

Baumgardner, S. R. & Crothers, MK (2009). Positive psychology .

Biswas-Diener, R., Kashdan, T. B., & Minhas, G. (2011). A dynamic approach to psychological strength development and intervention. The Journal of Positive Psychology , 6 (2), 106-118.

Branden, N. (1995). The six pillars of self-esteem . Bantam Dell Publishing Group.

Brdar, I., & Kashdan, T. B. (2010). Character strengths and well-being in Croatia: An empirical investigation of structure and correlates. Journal of research in personality , 44 (1), 151-154.

Bruni, L., & Porta, P. L. (2001). 2007. Handbook on the Economics of Happiness .

Chen, S. X., Cheung, F. M., Bond, M. H., & Leung, J. P. (2006). Going beyond self‐esteem to predict life satisfaction: The Chinese case. Asian Journal of Social Psychology , 9 (1), 24-35.

Weijers, D., & Jarden, A. (2013). The science of happiness for policymakers: An overview. Journal of Social Research & Policy , 4 (2).

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®) . American Psychiatric Pub.

Diener, E., & Chan, M. Y. (2011). Happy people live longer: Subjective well‐being contributes to health and longevity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well ‐ Being , 3 (1), 1-43.

Diener, E., Diener, M., & Diener, C. (1995). Factors predicting the subjective well-being of nations. Journal of personality and social psychology , 69 (5), 851.

Diener, E., & Oishi, S. (2005). The nonobvious social psychology of happiness. Psychological Inquiry , 16 (4), 162-167.

Diener, E., Wolsic, B., & Fujita, F. (1995). Physical attractiveness and subjective well-being. Journal of personality and social psychology , 69 (1), 120.

Donnellan, M. Brent, Kali H. Trzesniewski, Richard W. Robins, Terrie E. Moffitt, and Avshalom Caspi. "Low self-esteem is related to aggression, antisocial behavior, and delinquency." Psychological science 16, no. 4 (2005): 328-335.

Douglass, R. P., & Duffy, R. D. (2015). Strengths use and life satisfaction: A moderated mediation approach. Journal of Happiness Studies , 16 (3), 619-632.

Easterlin, R. A., Angelescu, L., & Zweig, J. S. (2011). The impact of modern economic growth on urban–rural differences in subjective well-being. World development , 39 (12), 2187-2198.

Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: an experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of personality and social psychology , 84 (2), 377.

Erol, R. Y., & Orth, U. (2017). Self-esteem and the quality of romantic relationships. European Psychologist .

Field, A. (2014). Discovering statistics using ibm spss statistics+ spss version 22.0 . Sage Publications.

Forest, A. L., & Wood, J. V. (2012). When social networking is not working: Individuals with low self-esteem recognize but do not reap the benefits of self-disclosure on Facebook. Psychological science , 23 (3), 295-302.

Govindji, R., & Linley, P. A. (2007). Strengths use, self-concordance and well-being: Implications for strengths coaching and coaching psychologists. International Coaching Psychology Review , 2 (2), 143-153.

Grant, A. M., & Schwartz, B. (2011). Too much of a good thing: The challenge and opportunity of the inverted U. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 6 (1), 61-76.

Greenspoon, P. J., & Saklofske, D. H. (2001). Toward an integration of subjective well-being and psychopathology. Social Indicators Research , 54 (1), 81-108.

Harter, S. (1993). Causes and consequences of low self-esteem in children and adolescents. In Self-esteem (pp. 87-116). Springer, Boston, MA.

Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2013). The application of signature character strengths and positive experiences at work. Journal of Happiness Studies , 14 (3), 965-983.

Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, mod- eration, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/ public/process2012.pdf

Headey, B., & Wooden, M. (2004). The effects of wealth and income on subjective well‐being and ill‐being. Economic record , 80 , S24-S33.

Heppner, W. L., Kernis, M. H., Nezlek, J. B., Foster, J., Lakey, C. E., & Goldman, B. M. (2008). Within-person relationships among daily self-esteem, need satisfaction, and authenticity. Psychological Science , 19 (11), 1140-1145.

Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2002). The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire: a compact scale for the measurement of psychological well-being. Personality and individual differences , 33 (7), 1073-1082.

Horney, K. (1950). The Collected Works of Karen Horney: Self analysis. Neurosis and human growth (Vol. 2). WW Norton.

Izard, C. E. (2011). Forms and functions of emotions: Matters of emotion–cognition interactions. Emotion Review , 3 (4), 371-378.

Joshanloo, M., & Afshari, S. (2011). Big Five personality traits and self-esteem as predictors of life satisfaction in Iranian Muslim university students. Journal of Happiness Studies , 12 (1), 105-113.

Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of applied psychology , 83 (1), 17.

Kashdan, T. B. (2004). The assessment of subjective well-being (issues raised by the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire). Personality and individual differences , 36 (5), 1225-1232.

Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of applied psychology , 83 (1), 17.

Keyes, C. L. (2005). Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete state model of health. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology , 73 (3), 539.

Layard, R. (2011). Government’s role should be to increase happiness and reduce misery. Policy analysis must be recast to reflect outcomes in terms of changes to happiness. British Politics and Policy at LSE . Retrieved from http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2011/10/17/happines-and-misery/ retrieved April 2018.

LAYARD, R. (2016). Promoting Happiness Ethics: The Greatest Happiness Principle. WORLD HAPPINESS , 50. Retrieved from https://www.badishams.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/World-Happiness-Report-2016.pdf#page=52 April, 2018

Linley, P. A., Nielsen, K. M., Gillett, R., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). Using signature strengths in pursuit of goals: Effects on goal progress, need satisfaction, and well-being, and implications for coaching psychologists. International Coaching Psychology Review , 5 (1), 6-15.

Littman-Ovadia, H., & Steger, M. (2010). Character strengths and well-being among volunteers and employees: Toward an integrative model. The Journal of Positive Psychology , 5 (6), 419-430.

Lyubomirsky, S., Tkach, C., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2006). What are the differences between happiness and self-esteem. Social Indicators Research , 78 (3), 363-404.

Macaskill, A. (2012). A feasibility study of psychological strengths and well-being assessment in individuals living with recurrent depression. The Journal of Positive Psychology , 7 (5), 372-386.

Martínez-Martí, M. L., & Ruch, W. (2017). Character strengths predict resilience over and above positive affect, self-efficacy, optimism, social support, self-esteem, and life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(2), 110-119.

McGillivray, M., & Clarke, M. (2006). Human well-being: Concepts and measures (pp. 3-16). United Nations University Press.

McMullin, J. A., & Cairney, J. (2004). Self-esteem and the intersection of age, class, and gender. Journal of aging studies , 18 (1), 75-90.

Millner, U. C. (2012). Review of Positive psychology: The science of happiness and human strengths.

Minhas, G. (2010). Developing realised and unrealised strengths: Implications for engagement, self-esteem, life satisfaction and well-being. Assessment and Development Matters , 2 (1), 12.

Mongrain, M., & Anselmo-Matthews, T. (2012). Do positive psychology exercises work? A replication of Seligman et al.(). Journal of clinical psychology , 68 (4).

Otake, K., Shimai, S., Tanaka-Matsumi, J., Otsui, K., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). Happy people become happier through kindness: A counting kindnesses intervention. Journal of happiness studies , 7 (3), 361-375.

Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Strengths of character and well-being. Journal of social and Clinical Psychology , 23 (5), 603-619.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior research methods , 40 (3), 879-891.

Proctor, C., Maltby, J., & Linley, P. A. (2011). Strengths use as a predictor of well-being and health-related quality of life. Journal of Happiness Studies , 12 (1), 153-169.

Proctor, C., Tsukayama, E., Wood, A. M., Maltby, J., Eades, J. F., & Linley, P. A. (2011). Strengths gym: The impact of a character strengths-based intervention on the life satisfaction and well-being of adolescents. The Journal of Positive Psychology , 6 (5), 377-388.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Rosenberg self-esteem scale (Self-esteem). Acceptance and commitment therapy. Measures package , 61 , 52.

Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Arndt, J., & Schimel, J. (2004). Why do people need self-esteem? A theoretical and empirical review. Psychological bulletin , 130 (3), 435.

Seligman, M. E., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: empirical validation of interventions. American psychologist , 60 (5), 410.

Sims, A., Barker, C., Price, C., & Fornells-Ambrojo, M. (2015). Psychological impact of identifying character strengths in people with psychosis. Psychosis , 7 (2), 179-182.

Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well‐being and alleviating depressive symptoms with positive psychology interventions: A practice‐friendly meta‐analysis. Journal of clinical psychology , 65 (5), 467-487.

Van de Mortel, T. F. (2008). Faking it: social desirability response bias in self-report research. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, The , 25 (4), 40.

Weijers, D., & Jarden, A. (2017). Wellbeing Policy. Wellbeing, Recovery and Mental Health , 35.

Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Kashdan, T. B., & Hurling, R. (2011). Using personal and psychological strengths leads to increases in well-being over time: A longitudinal study and the development of the strengths use questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences , 50 (1), 15-19.

Wood, A. M., & Tarrier, N. (2010). Positive clinical psychology: A new vision and strategy for integrated research and practice. Clinical psychology review , 30 (7), 819-829.

Wright, B. A., & Lopez, S. J. (2002). Widening the diagnostic focus. Handbook of positive psychology , 26-44.

Ye, S., Yu, L., & Li, K. K. (2012). A cross-lagged model of self-esteem and life satisfaction: Gender differences among Chinese university students. Personality and Individual Differences , 52 (4), 546-551.

Douglass, R. P., & Duffy, R. D. (2015). Strengths use and life satisfaction: a moderated mediation approach. Journal of Happiness Studies , 16 (3), 619-632.

Zhang, L., & Leung, J. P. (2002). Moderating effects of gender and age on the relationship between self-esteem and life satisfaction in mainland Chinese. International Journal of Psychology , 37 (2), 83-91

ARTICLE: Our Electric Personalities

Mon, 04 Mar 2019 13:31:32 GMT

How Cyberspace Challenges Theories on Identity

Today we find ourselves less bound to the physical presence of our colleagues and social interactions, as the internet has, and continues to change the way we work, learn, shop and socialise. This essay considers how the internet assists in sharing otherwise hidden elements of an individual’s identity and enables stigmatised individuals to express and even to cultivate a more genuine version of their identities. We begin by considering psychological concepts of self and identity from a traditional perspective, focusing upon the collective self as a backdrop to the development of symbolic interactionism. Various theories of contrasting selves are presented drawing importantly on the concept of a ‘true’ or private self, followed by the distinction between traditional theories which posit stable identity concepts in contrast to social constructionist theories highlighting a more flexible identity. This is followed by discussion around the conventional problems relating to both concealable and non-concealable stigma and primarily the threat which stigma traditionally represents to identity and its formation. These concepts of identity and stigma are then examined in the context of the post-modern and uniquely differentiating environmental aspects of the internet.

Two central questions are asked re the nature of human identity. The first is whether there is a core self which exists over and above social interaction. The second is whether the self operates as a truly individualised concept (Allport, 1924, p. 24) or whether identity and self is based instead on consideration of social perceptions. Wundt and other psychologists such as Durkheim, Muscovici and Tajfel theorised firmly in the direction of the importance of the collective self which emerges alongside social interaction (Farr, 1983). In relation to this, Identity theory has long considered the idea that individuals have various senses of self which exist in reference to society. William James not only opined that a person has as many identities as there are people who know him, but also drew upon two distinct but reciprocal concepts of self: ‘I’ in reference to the subject as seen by the individual, and ‘me’ in reference to the object of others perception (leary & Tangney, 2011) Thus, according to ‘ symbolic interactionism’ (Stryker, 1987) the self arises out of social interface (Mead, 1934) and entails Cooleys idea of a looking glass self where forming a sense of self includes seeing ourselves as how we ‘perceive’ that others see us (Tice 1992). Importantly, Rogers and others conceptualised that our current selves also contain elements which are not expressed socially yet still represent important identity defining factors and is what constitutes the ‘true self’. (Bargh, McKenna & Fitzsimons, 2002). Theories relating to a hidden or true self were considered further by Baumeister and Tice (1986) in identification of the discrepancy between the public and private self. These theories paint traditional social psychological assumptions of identity as being as much a product of society as of the individual with many contemplating the essentialist idea of a ‘true’ or private self in addition to an ‘actual’ or public one. Traditional theory therefore explains identity not only as having some hidden or future elements, but also as existing in reference to the world, as asserting itself in the interpersonal relationship, as being unitary and core (Turkle, 2011) and importantly, as being stable throughout life. However, the assumption of stability of identity has been challenged by the arrival of the internet and social constructionist approaches. More recent theory explains identity today as being multiple, variable, flexible and unstable (Gergen, 1985: Cresswell, 2011).

There are many reasons as to why parts of the self may not be expressed, particularly in relation to stigmatization of both concealable and non-concealable differences (Goffman, 1963). The effects upon stigmatized individuals have been noted as damaging and far reaching, with severe effects upon health and mental well-being (Link & Phelan, 2001). Stigma is described by Crocker et al, (1998) as occurring when a person is believed to have “some attribute or characteristic that conveys a social identity that is devaluated in a particular social context”. Accordingly, stigma is therefore considered as a construct which relies upon relationships and social context. It is held that stigmas affect individuals via various mediums including discrimination, self-fulfilling prophecies, automatic stereotype activation behaviour and threat to identity (Major & O’brien, 2005). In focusing on the impact upon identity, it has been seen that where a person feels their group is devalued then this threatens the aspect of the self associated with membership of that devalued group (Tajfel & Turner, 2004). Additionally, where the stigmatizing aspect is invisible such as sexual orientation (rather than visible such as obesity) stigmatised identities are less able to align themselves with similar identities around them removing the ability to satisfy important social and personal identity needs (Fiske, 1993). Thus, the individuals’ need to belong, the need to gain certainty about oneself and the need to gain self-esteem (Brewer, 1991) are potentially not fulfilled in those with concealable stigmas (Frable, 1993). Furthermore, those with concealable stigmatising features are more likely to hear adverse comments, reinforcing the negative effects within that person’s self-esteem. The result is that individuals with concealable versus un-concealable stigmas have felt isolated and unable to share their identity socially, thus creating conflict between the public persona and private (or true) identity (Frable, 1993).

McKenna, Gleeson and Green (2002) highlight four important differences between face to face and internet interaction which pinpoint the uniqueness of the internet environment and its impact in relation to identity and stigmatised individuals. Firstly, anonymity is a possibility on the internet, indeed Identity need not be disclosed. The internet presents the ability for un-concealable stigmas to be concealed and thus for elaboration of parts of the self which may have remained unexplored due to shyness. Similarly, and yet conversely, stigmatized identities who are often forced to conceal a stigma, can feel empowered to reveal their true selves and stigmatising features in online interactions (albeit unconsciously (McKenna, 2006) and to find and join community groups on the internet. Both forms of stigmatised groups therefore are able to use cyberspace to escape the restrictions illustrated by traditional identity and stigma theory and enjoy related life benefits such as increased positive affect and self-esteem. Stigmatised groups therefore become free to construct identities which cast aside characters and ‘selves’ which they had previously maintained for public or face-to-face relationships. (Mckenna & Bargh, 2000).

Secondly, not only those individuals who are stigmatized through disability, but also those who are perceived by society as being less physically attractive may also be able to explore their identity and come closer to their true or private selves on line. Communicating in the absence of physical attributes and cues can allow for stereotype free development of relationships. The Halo effect, where individuals who are attractive are automatically seen as being better liked, helped by others, more intelligent and kinder (Guadagno & Cialdini, 2002) is not observed in on line interactions. People with perceived physical disadvantages (whether it be extreme beauty or disability) therefore are less likely to be discriminated against and are able to express relevant, strategic or positive parts of their selves. Here lies the idea that it is possible for the internet to nurture a person’s true self, at the same time as enabling them to hide portions of it (Ben Ze’ev, 2005).

Thirdly, Internet relationships are capable of being less spontaneous and less confrontational. Stigmatised groups such as those with concealed (or non-concealed) developmental or communication affecting disorders such as autism, or simply low self-esteem may therefore find solace in the ability to choose the time and pace of interactions. This process on line may reduce stress and allow time for an individual to strategically create an identity which is helpful, yet considerably different to the one they have in face to face relationships. The identity of less confident or disabled individuals can therefore thrive on line and become akin to that of an active, positive, confident individual, capable of carrying out practical social activities and in creating helpful social bonds.

Fourthly, the internet also facilitates the ability to easily find others who share important or stigmatised elements of identity. This is of great importance to those with concealable stigmas who may be unable to associate with similar others due to other individuals’ concealment of the same for fear of exposing their own stigmas. Benefits are thus derived from the ability to share formerly hidden parts of identity with similar others and receive all important social validation (McKenna & Bargh, 1998).

These four pivotal distinctions between on line and face to face interactions illustrate an environment where both concealed and unconcealed stigmatised identities are able to carry out development of their true selves (McKenna & Bargh, 2000) placing importance on social interaction in identity development. With visible stigmas this may be through increased concealment opportunities creating the occasion to demonstrate or develop other aspects of the self. Whilst with invisible stigmas, on line communication or communicative identification with a larger group (Reid & Deaux, 1996) reduces isolation and facilitates identity demarginalization and well-being (McKenna & Bargh, 1998). It is important to note however that aside from simply enabling marginalised identities to be recreated or revealed, such changes to identity as created on line, do not simply generate an additional virtual persona or ‘masking effect’ which may then pander to a problematic stigmatised society (Cain, 1991). Rather, it has been seen that such on line interactions which permit the individual to express their identity more genuinely (Turkle, 1999) also induce a spill over effect into ‘real life’. In a 1998 study (Mckenna & Bargh) found that participants with marginalised concealed identities having created a ‘truer’ persona in on line groups, and in adherence with self-completion theory (Golwitzer, Wicklund & Hilton, 1982) returned to real life and continued their new identities. Therefore, alongside placing greater importance on social identity within the persona of the stigmatised individual, the internet also promotes flexibility of persona alongside demarginalization of stigmatised identity, thus challenging both traditional identity and stigma theories.

Whilst it can be said therefore that identity is effectively becoming linked to choice, creation and freedom in challenging the traditional concept of stability of identity across a lifetime, cyberspace can nonetheless have the effect of diminishing the existence of multiple identities. Constructionist theories and the internet allow for the existence of flexible, unstable and multiple selves. However, the internet as we have seen also has the effect of removing the need for public aliases in concealable stigmatised identities and serves rather to proliferate and magnify a large part of a previously hidden identity in marginalised personas. The internet as well as challenging the traditional concept of stable lifelong identities in some groups, also calls into question in other groups the social constructionist theory of post-modern internet identities as being multiple. Whilst we have seen how the internet undoubtedly challenges aspects of traditional identity theory in the possible creation of variable, impermanent and easily produced multiple selves, cyber space may too challenge even post-modernist approaches. Whilst in many non-stigmatised (and stigmatised) groups the internet has provided for a flexible, situational and variable identity - it has nonetheless conversely been seen to have a stabilising and unifying effect on those with concealable stigmas, more consistent with traditional theory.

Perhaps dichotomously therefore, the internet whilst permitting people to easily change and flexibly explore what was thought to be a stable construct (Dretzin, 2009), also allows for closer unification between the actual and true self. This challenges not only aspects of traditional, but also postmodern identity theory in relation to stigmatised groups. However, it is possible that the dynamics at play in the creation of a ‘Protean self’, could also precipitate an eventual inability to reflect on who we are as authentic identities. It is to be seen whether human beings in cyberspace will lose the aptitude to inwardly reflect, perceive and communicate a true persona without the need to connect and interact electronically with multiple, and perhaps anonymous others. In short, the traditional social psychological principle of influence of social context over the construction of identity may well be in decline.

References

Allport, G. W. (1924). The study of the undivided personality. The Journal of Abnormal Psychology and Social Psychology , 19 (2), 132.

Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2002). Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the “true self” on the Internet. Journal of social issues , 58 (1), 33-48.

Baumeister, R. E., & Tice, D. M. (1986). Four selves, two motives, and a substitute process self-regulation model. In Public self and private self (pp. 63-74). Springer, New York, NY.

Ben Se’ev, A. (2005). ‘Detattachment': the unique nature of online romantic relationships

In Amichai–Hamburger, Y. Understanding Human Behavior in Cyberspace . New York: Oxford University Press.

Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and social psychology bulletin , 17 (5), 475-482.

Cain, R. (1991). Stigma management and gay identity development. Social work , 36 (1), 67-73.

Cresswell, J. (2011). Being faithful: Bakhtin and a potential postmodern psychology of self. Culture & Psychology , 17 (4), 473-490.

Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. S Fiske, D Gilbert, G Lindzey, vol. 2 , pp. 504–53. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill

Farr, R. M. (1983). Wilhelm Wundt (1832–1920) and the origins of psychology as an experimental and social science. British Journal of Social Psychology , 22 (4), 289-301.

Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American psychologist , 48 (6), 621.

Frable, D. E. (1993). Dimensions of marginality: Distinctions among those who are different. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 19 (4), 370-380.

Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American psychologist , 40 (3), 266.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of a spoiled identity. New York: Simon & Schuster

Gollwitzer, P. M., Wicklund, R. A., & Hilton, J. L. (1982). Admission of failure and symbolic self-completion: Extending Lewinian theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 43 (2), 358.

Guadagno, R. E., & Cialdini, R. B. (2002). Online persuasion: An examination of gender differences in computer-mediated interpersonal influence. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice , 6 (1), 38.

Leary, M. R., & Tangney, J. P. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of self and identity . Guilford Press.

Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual review of Sociology , 27 (1), 363-385.

Major, B., & O'brien, L. T. (2005). The social psychology of stigma. Annu. Rev. Psychol. , 56 , 393-421.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society (Vol. 111). University of Chicago Press.: Chicago.

McKenna, K. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (1998). Coming out in the age of the Internet: Identity" demarginalization" through virtual group participation. Journal of personality and social psychology , 75 (3), 681.

McKenna, K. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the Internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and social psychology review , 4 (1), 57-75.

McKenna, K. Y., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. (2002). Relationship formation on the Internet: What’s the big attraction?. Journal of social issues , 58 (1), 9-31.

Reid, A., & Deaux, K. (1996). Relationship between social and personal identities: Segregation or integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 71 (6), 1084.

Stryker, S. (1987). The vitalization of symbolic interactionism. Social Psychology Quarterly , 50 (1), 83-94.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior.

Tice, D. M. (1992). Self-concept change and self-presentation: The looking glass self is also a magnifying glass. Journal of personality and social psychology , 63 (3), 435.

Turkle, S. (1999). Cyberspace and identity. Contemporary sociology , 28 (6), 643-648.

Turkle, S. (2011). Life on the Screen . Simon and Schuster.

ARTICLE: The Future of The Humanistic Personality

Mon, 04 Mar 2019 13:28:00 GMT

Two Distinct Theories, Divided by a Common Past

Personality theories have over time pursued explanations of human behaviour and of what it may be that composes a person. This essay will examine two personality theories which, whilst having fundamental differences, have roots embedded firmly within humanistic psychology (Linley and Joseph 2004b). Both theories alongside their respective criticisms will be considered with a purposeful emphasis on assessment of humanistic attributes, culminating in some thought as to the future of the humanistic tradition itself.

Humanistic psychology emerged in the 1950s as an alternative to the psychoanalytic and behavioural approaches prevailing at the time. Its focus was on how to flourish as a human being and aimed to study in broad terms the ultimate potential of individuals (Silberschatz, 2007). These fundamental concepts became of pivotal importance again at the turn of the century within the emerging field of Positive Psychology. Positive psychologists have been voluble in appreciation of their fields roots in humanistic psychology and in acknowledgement of certain shared values (Seligman, 2002). However, whilst remaining within the familiar humanistic realms of individual character virtues, positive psychology extends far beyond the traditional humanistic approaches and integrates a firmly data based methodology. (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).

Whilst it was the humanistic psychologist Abraham Maslow who established the first professional association in humanistic psychology alongside the first journals in this emerging field, one of the most prominent humanistic theories in personality was developed by Carl Rogers (1961). Carl Rogers developed his theory of personality as a by-product of his work as a clinical psychologist in relation to use of his ‘person centred therapy’ (Rogers, 1959). This theory of personality was reflected in Rogers views that the core of human nature is “essentially positive” (Rogers, 1961, p.73) and hinges upon the idea that an individual may become a fully functioning person through a continuous, ‘flowing’ approach to growth and self-acceptance.

Possibly one of Rogers most central principles is contained within the idea of the self. Here lies the concept that an individual’s ‘phenomenological field’ includes all conscious and unconscious experiences available at a particular moment. The self is thus created as development occurs and a part of the phenomenological field becomes differentiated (Hall, Lindzey, Loehlin, Manosevitz & Locke, 1985). The self-concept constitutes an individual’s characteristics and awareness, and develops through interactions with others. However, this explanation of self has been criticised as vague due to lack of detail as to when the differentiation of phenomenal field into self actually occurs. Rogers also only seems to define the ‘ideal self’ and not any alternative variations. A more general shortcoming of this and other humanistic theories is that although there is some mention of the unconscious self experience in Rogers writings after 1977, much emphasis is placed upon conscious awareness. This arguably limits the exploration of much of the approach and largely ignores unconscious and subconscious considerations. Additionally, research by the behaviourist movement used studies of animals in deriving theory. Whilst humanistic psychologists therefore prefer a holistic approach and exploration of ‘persons’ over ‘pigeons’, it is nonetheless difficult to prove or disprove humanistic theory which lacks objective methodology, (Soper et al. 1995).

Another key principle of Rogers personality theory is that of an ‘actualising tendency’. This is the tendency and underlying drive of all humans to develop the organisms best and full capacities, forcing it towards autonomy. Rogers maintained that this tendency, which guides all motivations is an integral part of the organism which, whist may be suppressed cannot be destroyed (Rogers, 1977). This fundamental concept supposes that organisms naturally strive to fulfil their full potential. Whilst previous psychologists such as Freud had argued that organisms aim for homeostasis (Krebs & Blackman, 1988), Rogers defends the positive urge assertion by citing studies which show that absence of external stimuli leads to increased internal stimuli – and not to homeostasis (Rogers, 1977). However, the idea that individuals are intrinsically good and will always choose the most positive paths for themselves remains in question. Related to this is the additional alleged shortcoming of this and other humanistic theories wherein ignorance of the concept of evil leads towards a naïve and overly positive bias (Hoffman 2009, p. 485).

Rogers also conceptualized a psychological version of the ‘actualizing tendency’, known as ‘self-actualizing tendency’. This is the experience which is purely relevant to the self (Rogers, 1959). In other words, it is the drive to see oneself in line with one’s own conscious view of one’s own characteristics. For example, in childhood a person develops self- concept, alongside secondary needs for positive regard from others and positive self-regard. A person will then tend to behave in a way which is consistent with that individuals self-concept. However, it has been criticized that there is a potential rift between the actualization and the self-actualization directions. If there is alienation from the true self therefore, then there may be organismic movement in one direction, with conscious struggle in the other. Rogers acquiesced that this is partly due to society which encourages human behaviour which counters actualizing tendency ( Rogers , 1977. P. 248) citing young infants as being an example of completely congruence. Rogers personality theory in focusing on self-actualization has also been identified as contributory to an overly individualistic mind-set and inconsiderate of society at large (Garrison 2001, p. 98). This is perhaps symptomatic of the purely westernised style and lack of cross cultural applicability of the humanistic approach at this time (Hofstede & Bond, 1984, p. 396; Gambrel & Cianci 2003).

Rogers believed in a process of ‘organismic valuing and conditions of worth’. This is the idea that when significant figures in life provide conditional rather than unconditional positive regard, such as parents, then individuals will tend to introject those desired characteristics, making them “conditions of worth”. (Rogers, 1959). The person will then go on to use these values as a basis for their self-concept, rather than self or organismic evaluation. An incongruence between the ‘self as perceived’ and the ‘self as experienced by the individual’ (or organism) can then lead to anxiety and confusion. Such maladaptive behaviour is what Rogers called the common human condition: incongruence between the self and experience. It is questionable how this principle aligns with Rogers overarching belief in the ability of humans to continually “make constructive choices” (Rogers, 1961, p.195). Whilst his emphasis on autonomy and ‘choosing behaviours’ may be advantageous as a therapy form, this theme could be at odds with his fundamental concept of incongruence. One may question for example the degree of autonomy it is possible to have (Rogers, 1977, p.15) whilst being urged by society in one direction and by the self in another (Kensit, 2000)

Within this theory is the possibility however of developing optimally and achieving existence as a ‘fully functioning person’ constantly moving towards “The Good Life” (Rogers, 1961, p.186). Conversely, the ‘maladjusted person’ is anxious, defensive, maintains his life, runs to a plan, feels manipulated, is not autonomous or creative, but conforming. The goal of Rogers therapy is thus to disperse the conditions of worth and to improve the organismic valuing process. However, it is possible to highlight an incongruence between a) the assertion that self-descriptions move towards ideals after counselling and b) Rogers’ aim of removing conditions of worth. Statements of ideals which clients are gravitating towards in therapy may indeed be the client’s representations of their conditions of worth. This is potentially inconsistent with one of Rogers aims being to remove conditions of worth to restore the organismic valuing process (Maddi, 1989). Additionally, whilst some characteristics have been supported (Coan, 1972), other studies have not supported Rogers’ fully functional description. It has been seen that Openness to experience and organismic trusting do not correlate (Pearson, 1974). Additionally, it has been found that self-accepting and non-defensive people may be more accepting of others (Ryckman, 2012). It is also perhaps a result of this theory’s origin as an off shoot of a particular therapeutic approach that Rogers refers merely to two personality types, the maladjusted or fully functioning human (Maggi, 1989). As we have seen, this theory employs a non-reductionist approach in which the client is accompanied by the therapist on a journey of self-actualization, viewing the person as an active and autonomous agent. It thus falls prey to the criticism that in focusing on an individual’s journey of self-discovery, it may represent limited benefit to those individuals with more complex problems (Van Deurzen, 2015).

Humanistic theorists such as Rogers emphasized the importance of the greater human endeavour of self-determination and self-actualization and assumed that all people are capable of thriving, goodness and becoming better people. This concept was accepted by many as having paved the way for the emergence at the turn of the century of positive psychology (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2009). Similarly, it has been supported that positive psychology represents very much a “Neo-Adlerian perspective” (Watts & Ergüner-Tekinalp, 2017). As seen, humanistic theories of personality have been criticised in general for being naively positive, untestable due to focus on subjective experience, unscientifically based, disregarding of unconscious processes and unhelpful to those with complex problems. Whilst positive psychology undoubtedly comes from the same roots, it is well argued that many such areas of criticism are addressed within this more recent field.

In deviating from its more spiritual, less empirical ancestors, positive psychology is the more scientific study of human flourishing, to use a familiar humanistic word. Positive psychological personality theory promotes the idea that there is much to be gained from expanding focus to include close assessment of a persons’ better points in addition to simply correcting its problems. This approach to personality has provided a vast array of empirical studies investigating positive personality constructs such as courage, humour, optimism, how these interrelate and how to enable their development (Martinez-Marti & Ruch, 2017). A key feature of this theory is the assessment of an individuals’ character strengths using the Values In Action Survey, an empirically validated self-assessment tool to help individuals understand their core strengths. Just as the goal of Rogers theory is improvement through gradual self-acceptance towards ‘full functioning’ (Rogers, 1961), so positive psychology promotes improvement through discovery of self strengths towards ‘optimal functioning’ (Linley & Joseph, 2004). Whilst the similarities are undeniable, so too are the distinctions. Positive psychological personality theory may be accused of having a similarly humanistic, Eudemonic theme of self-actualization. However, it has inarguably taken several scientific strides further in analysing how various personality traits link with other constructs, across cultures, in relation to other individuals and organisations (Warren, Donaldson & Donaldson, 2017). The common humanistic weaknesses of subjective experience obsession, verifiability, and ethnocentrism may not apply to this theory given its broad use of ‘others’ as well as self-reporting methods and cross-cultural, longitudinal, experimental designs.

Another central concept of positive psychology is that of ‘Flow’, long accepted by positive psychologists as a humanistic principle employed by Carl Rogers (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2009). In positive psychology flow is the process of achieving optimal functioning resulting in loss of self-consciousness, effortless control, clarity of goals and experience of intrinsic reward (koehn, 2013). On a neuropsychological level flow has been associated with decreased activity in the prefrontal cortex thus accounting for sensations of distortion of time, loss of self-consciousness, and loss of inner-critic (Dietrich, 2004). This has the impact of allowing the implicit mind to dominate, encouraging communication between brain areas and improving creativity, alongside increasing dopamine and amplifying curiosity. This theory of personality then not only utilises empirical study, but also implements other scientific fields in its underpinnings.

Positive psychology also attempts to address complex psychological burdens. Studies have shown that individuals with mental disorders such as psychosis are assisted with positive psychological personality strength interventions (Sims, Barker, Price & Fornells, 2015). This theory seeks to encompass not only those wishing to avoid pathology or to achieve optimal performance, but also to define the most distressed personality as more than the representation of a pathology. (Schulenberg, 2016). Positive psychology is able to study the individuals’ intact faculties and strengths in order to analyse how these may buffer against serious disorder. It is argued that this cannot be to the exclusion of clinical methods, and does not represent an effective approach for the most serious of conditions, but such studies effectively serve to bring positive psychology inwards from the mere periphery of conventional clinical work (Duckworth, Steen & Seligman, 2005)

The extraordinary efforts and advances of positive psychology in building a vast body of peer reviewed empirical research may not however be enough to exempt it from some of the criticisms faced by traditional humanistic theories. Whilst both the ‘Client Centred’ and positive psychological approaches to personality have provided constructive tools in counselling and therapeutic fields, it is argued that both still fall foul of common humanistic shortcomings. Both remain for many to be naively optimistic in their failure of analysis of the more negative but important sides of human nature. Both can be accused at least to some degree of continuing in their bias towards ‘self’ driven, individualistic principles. Both are also arguably of limited use to those with complex problems. It is perhaps for this reason that positive psychologists have taken care to distance themselves in name and in methodology from the humanistic tradition (Waterman, 2013). It is to be seen however whether these shared critiques are an indication of the commonality of these two approaches, or a mere legacy of two now diverging paths. Given the above discussion, there is support for the idea that we will observe the humanistic tradition continue in its evolution to address further criticisms, in the shape of positive psychology.

References

Coan, R. W. (1972). Measurable components of openness to experience. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39(2), 346.

Dietrich, A. (2006). Transient hypofrontality as a mechanism for the psychological effects of exercise. Psychiatry research, 145(1), 79-83.

Lee Duckworth, A., Steen, T. A., & Seligman, M. E. (2005). Positive psychology in clinical practice. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol., 1, 629-651.

Gambrel, P. A., & Cianci, R. (2003). Maslow's hierarchy of needs: Does it apply in a collectivist culture. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 143.

Garrison, A. (2001). Restoring the human in humanistic psychology. Journal of humanistic psychology, 41(4), 91-104.

Hall, C., Lindzey, G., Loehlin, J. C., Manosevitz, M., & Locke, V. O. (1985). Introduction to theories of personality. John Wiley&Sons.

Hoffman, E. (2009). Rollo May on Maslow and Rogers. Psychology, 49(4), 484-485.

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede's culture dimensions: An independent validation using Rokeach's value survey. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 15(4), 417-433.

Kensit, D. A. (2000). Rogerian theory: A critique of the effectiveness of pure client-centred therapy. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 13(4), 345-351.

Koehn, S. (2013). Effects of confidence and anxiety on flow state in competition. European journal of sport science, 13(5), 543-550.

Krebs, D., & Blackman, R. (1988). Psychology: A first encounter. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2004). Toward a theoretical foundation for positive psychology in practice (pp. 713-731). John Wiley & Sons, Inc..

Maddi, S. R. (1989). Personality theories: A comparative analysis. Dorsey Press.

Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi In, Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). (2009). Oxford handbook of positive psychology. Oxford University Press, USA.

Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Strengths of character and well-being. Journal of social and Clinical Psychology, 23(5), 603-619.

Pearson, P. H. (1974). Conceptualizing and measuring openness to experience in the context of psychotherapy. Wexler, DA & North Rice, L., Innovations in Client-Centered Therapy, 139-170.

Rogers, C. R. (1959). Significant learning in therapy and in education. Educational leadership, 16(4), 232-242.

Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist's view of psychology. London: Constable.

Rogers, C. (1977). Carl Rogers on personal power: Inner strenght and its revolutionary impact. New York: Delacorte.

Ryckman, R. M. (2012). Theories of personality. Cengage Learning.

Seligman, M. E. (2002). Positive psychology, positive prevention, and positive therapy. Handbook of positive psychology, 2(2002), 3-12.

Silberschatz, G. (2007). Comments on" The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change.".

Schulenberg, S. E. (2016). Disaster Mental Health and Positive Psychology–Considering the Context of Natural and Technological Disasters: An Introduction to the Special Issue. Journal of clinical psychology, 72(12), 1223-1233.

Sims, A., Barker, C., Price, C., & Fornells-Ambrojo, M. (2015). Psychological impact of identifying character strengths in people with psychosis. Psychosis, 7(2), 179-182.

Soper, B., Milford, G. E., & Rosenthal, G. T. (1995). Belief when evidence does not support theory. Psychology & Marketing, 12(5), 415-422.

Van Deurzen, E. (2015). Paradox and passion in psychotherapy: An existential approach. John wiley & sons.

Warren, M. A., Donaldson, S. I., & Donaldson, S. I. (2017). Evaluating Scientific Progress in Positive Psychology. Scientific Advances in Positive Psychology, 1.

Waterman, A. S. (2013). The humanistic psychology–positive psychology divide: Contrasts in philosophical foundations. American Psychologist, 68(3), 124.

Watts, R. E., & Ergüner-Tekinalp, B. (2017). Positive Psychology: A Neo-Adlerian Perspective. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 73(4), 328-337.