Week 4 Attention Economic Tutor Due Date is 06/28/13

Readings

Read pp. 207-221 of Ch. 10 of Positive Psychology.

CheckPoint

Human Virtues and Character Strengths

Examine one human virtue and the associated character strengths that are important to you, as listed in Ch. 10 of Positive Psychology.

Select someone who you know or is a public figure who you feel encompasses at least one of these virtues.

Discuss why this virtue is important to you. How does the person you selected encompass this virtue and the associated character strengths?

Post a 200- to 300-word response.

Think of someone you hold in high regard and look up to as a model for yourself and others.Perhaps a friend, relative, or a person from history or contemporary society comes tomind. Think about this individual’s personal qualities and how you might describe thebasis of your admiration to another person. Make a mental list of 4 or 5 qualities that make thisperson deserving of your respect. Now compare your list to the positive traits discussed inChapter 9. How many of them overlap? Did your list include extraversion, cheerfulness, selfesteem,or optimism? What traits on your list are not in Chapter 9? Did you include any of thefollowing qualities: integrity, courage, honesty, kindness, religious conviction, wisdom, fairness,or modesty? The point here, affirmed by how we think about people we respect, is that adescription of positive human traits would be incomplete without including personal qualitiesCHAPTER OUTLINEDeveloping a Classification of Human VirtuesMeasuring Strengths of CharacterWisdom as a Foundational Strength and VirtueWhat is Wisdom?Theories of WisdomBalance TheoryWisdom as Expert Knowledge in the Conduct of LifeWisdom in Action: The SOC Model of Effective Life ManagementFocus on Theory: Wisdom or Self-control as Master Virtues?Transcendence: Religion and SpiritualityThe Search for MeaningReligion and Spirituality: The Diversity of ViewsDefining Religion and SpiritualityReligion/Spirituality and Well-BeingReligious OrientationIntrinsic and Extrinsic Religious OrientationQuest Religious OrientationAttachment Theory and Relationship to GodStyles of Religious Coping“Explaining Religion versus Explaining Religion Away”Religion and VirtueForgivenessGratitudeFocus on Research: Increasing Well-Being by Counting Your Blessings10Virtue and Strengthsof Character207ISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.208 Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of Characterjudged as positive because they are “good” inmoral and ethical terms. Clearly, we may admirepeople who are outgoing, upbeat, and positiveabout the future. But just as clearly, and perhaps at adeeper level, we also admire individuals who showstrengths of character that reflect virtuous qualities likeintegrity, kindness, and compassion. In short, virtueand character strengths belong on a list of positivehuman traits.The traits reviewed in Chapter 9 were evaluatedas positive because of their benefits to individualwell-being—specifically health, happiness, andemotional well-being. Virtuous behavior may alsoincrease our life satisfaction and make life moremeaningful and healthy. However, virtue is also considereda positive trait independent of any benefit or“pay-off” to the individual. Virtue is positivelyregarded in its own right because of its connection toreligious and secular mores and its value to society.A consideration of virtue and character strengths providesan additional way to think about the meaningof “positive.” In this chapter, we will first review arecent attempt to provide a comprehensive classificationof character strengths and virtues. Then, we willfocus on two foundational virtues (wisdom andreligion) in more detail by examining how they contributeto well-being and a life well-lived.DEVELOPING A CLASSIFICATIONOF HUMAN VIRTUESFor a considerable time in psychology’s history,virtue was not considered an appropriate constructfor scientific investigation. The study of virtue wasthought to be too easily tainted and biased by themoral beliefs of researchers and the prevailing culturalmores of the day (Tjeltveit, 2003). Many psychologistsbelieved that science should provide onlyobjective facts about how people act. Questionsabout how people should conduct themselves—thatis, whether their actions were good, bad, moral, orimmoral—were left for philosophers and theologiansto decide. However, a renewed interest incharacter strengths has begun to emerge as morepsychologists have come to realize that a completeaccount of human behavior needs to include themoral dimension of people’s lives (Fowers &Tjeltveit, 2003). Recent events from the Enron scandalto the influence-peddling of lobbyist JackAbramoff have reinforced the importance of ethicalbehavior. People’s anger and outrage at these sortsof improprieties stem primarily from moral considerations.In short, people lead moral lives in the senseof evaluating themselves and others according tomoral criteria.Describing the features of a life well-lived is acentral theme of positive psychology. Because themeaning of a good person and a good life are intimatelyconnected to virtue, positive psychology hasgiven virtue particular prominence. This is mostapparent in a recent collaborative research project(the Values in Action Project, Peterson & Seligman,2004) that had the lofty goal of developing a classificationof character strengths and virtues that wouldparallel the Diagnostic and Statistical Manualof Mental Disorders (DSM), developed by theAmerican Psychiatric Association (2000). The DSMprovides a classification of mental disorders and anextensive “language” for describing human psychologicalweaknesses and pathologies. Authors of theValues in Action Project (VIA) hoped to create acomprehensive classification system similar to theDSM, but one that was focused on human strengthsrather than weaknesses. They also hoped to providea language describing positive human qualities thatdefined a healthy person living a good life. Putanother way, the DSM describes aspects of life“below zero” (with “zero” representing the thresholddividing mental health from emotional illness). Onegoal of the VIA was to describe life “above zero”(i.e., to identify the traits that define emotionalhealth and strength). This goal is consistent withpositive psychology’s emphasis on restoring balanceto the field, in place of psychology’s historic focuson problematic human behaviors.Developing a classification of characterstrengths is a daunting task. Virtue and characterare obviously complex topics. What, exactly, is ahuman virtue or character strength? Do people havea common understanding of traits that qualify asvirtuous? Getting answers to these questions wasone of the major purposes of the VIA. The VIA,coordinated by Christopher Peterson and MartinSeligman (2004), brought together a group ofresearchers who sought to describe those strengthsof character that were most prominent across historyand culture. Is there a common set of humanqualities universally regarded as positive virtues? Alist of possible “candidates” was generated by examiningvirtues and strengths described in a variety ofphilosophic, religious, and cultural traditions. Thislist included virtues described in major religionsISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of Character 209and philosophies (e.g., Confucianism, Buddhism,Hinduism, Judeo-Christianity, and ancient Greekphilosophy), the works of famous historical figures(e.g., Benjamin Franklin), and in popular culture(e.g., Boy and Girl Scout Guides, Hallmark greetingcards, popular songs, Saturday Evening Post coversby Normal Rockwell).From a long list of candidates, 24 characterstrengths were selected and organized around 6virtues. The 6 virtues—wisdom, courage, humanity,justice, temperance, and transcendence—wereselected because they appear to be universalacross history and across societies. They representmoral virtues as defined by most religions and ethicalphilosophies. Peterson and Seligman regardthese virtues as core defining features of goodcharacter. Each virtue is defined by a set of characterstrengths that represent the ingredients, expressions,and potential means of developing thevirtue. For example, temperance as a virtue refersto people’s strength in avoiding excesses. Theingredients and expressions of temperance wouldinclude self-control, gratitude toward others,humility, prudent decision-making, and the abilityto forgive the transgressions of self and others.Developing this virtue would involve efforts toexert more self-control, become more humble andless self-aggrandizing, and more grateful and forgivingin relationships with others.Character strengths were selected by applyinga set of criteria to the list of strengths identified inthe first phase of the project. A sample of the set ofcriteria used is shown in Table 10.1. To be includedin the final classification, a character strength had tomeet all or nearly all of these criteria.Half of the strengths selected met the entire setof criteria. The other half did not. As Seligman andPeterson note, disagreements can arise about theinclusion of one or another of the strengths, the placementof a given strength under a particular virtue, andwhether some other important strength was omitted.However, taken in total, this classification system“hangs together” as a reasonably coherent first effortat describing what may be universally regarded ashuman strengths and virtues. The final classification ofstrengths and virtues is described in Table 10.2. For acomplete description of the selection criteria, previousclassification models, and literature reviews detailingwhat is known about each character strength, seePeterson and Seligman’s Character Strengths andVirtues: A Handbook and Classification (2004).Wisdom and KnowledgeAs a virtue, wisdom refers to a general intellectualstrength involving the development and use ofknowledge. Wisdom does not necessarily followfrom a formal education or a high IQ score. Wisdomrefers to a more practical intelligence and good judgmentbased on learning life’s lessons—perhapsthrough hardships. A wise person puts things in theproper perspective and avoids the pitfalls of narrowlyfocused and self-interested understandings. Wisdommeans being able to offer good counsel to othersabout how to live and how to understand and dealwith life’s challenges, uncertainties, and choices.CourageCourage is the emotional strength to overcome fearin the face of opposition and adversity. Courage isTABLE 10.1 Criteria for selecting character strengthsRegarded as a valued moral quality in and of itself, whether or not it led to concrete benefits.Contributes to personal fulfillment in the sense of enhancing personal expressiveness, meaningfulness, satisfaction,and happiness.Constitutes a stable individual difference trait for which reliable measures had been previously developed.Be distinctive and not overlap with other strengths.Have an opposite that was clearly negative (e.g., the opposite of courage is cowardice).Enhances rather than diminishes other people when expressed (i.e., the trait must evoke admiration or respect ratherthan envy, inferiority, or lowered self-evaluation).Be the focus of institutional efforts (e.g., education, churches) to promote its development.ISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.210 Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of CharacterTABLE 10.2 Classification of virtues and character strengthsI. Wisdom and Knowledge—cognitive strengths that entail the acquisition and use of knowledge.Defining Strengths1. Creativity—thinking of novel and productive ways to do things2. Curiosity—taking an interest in all ongoing experience3. Open-mindedness—thinking things through and from all sides4. Love of learning—mastering new skills, topics, and bodies of knowledge5. Perspective—being able to provide wise counsel to othersII. Courage—emotional strengths that involve exercise of will in the face of opposition, external or internal.Defining Strengths6. Authenticity—speaking the truth and presenting yourself in a genuine way7. Bravery—not shrinking from threat, challenge, difficulty, or pain8. Persistence—finishing what one starts despite obstacles along the way9. Zest—approaching life with excitement and energyIII. Humanity—interpersonal strengths that involve “tending and befriending” others.Defining Strengths10. Kindness—doing favors and good deeds for others11. Love—valuing close relations with others12. Social intelligence—being aware of the motives and feelings of self and othersIV. Justice—civic strengths that underlie healthy community life.Defining Strengths13. Fairness—treating all people the same according to notions of fairness and justice14. Leadership—organizing group activities and seeing that they happen15. Teamwork—working well as member of a group or teamV. Temperance—strengths that protect against excess.Defining Strengths16. Forgiveness—forgiving those who have done wrong17. Modesty—letting one’s accomplishments speak for themselves18. Prudence—being careful about one’s choices; not saying or doing things that might be later regretted19. Self-regulation—regulating what one feels and doesVI. Transcendence—strengths that forge connections to the larger universe and providing meaning.Defining Strengths20. Appreciation of beauty and excellence—noticing and appreciating beauty, excellence, and/or skilled performancein all domains of life21. Gratitude—being aware of and thankful for good things that happen22. Hope—expecting the best and working to achieve it23. Humor—liking to laugh and tease; bringing smiles to other people24. Religiousness/Spirituality—having coherent beliefs about the higher purposes and meaning of lifeSource: Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation ofinterventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410–421. Copyright American Psychological Association. Adapted and reprinted withpermission.ISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of Character 211exemplified in confronting and accepting one’s owndeath; dealing with a debilitating illness or disease;honestly confronting one’s own limitations, weaknesses,or bad habits; and standing up for one’sconvictions, despite the possibility of negative consequences(e.g., chastisement by others).HumanityHumanity refers to our capacity for sympathy, empathy,compassion, and love in our relationships withothers. Humanity is the basis for nurturing and caringrelationships focused on another’s needs ratherthan one’s own needs and interests. Humanity isexpressed in our willingness to help others in need,to be kind, to be generous, and to respect the feelingsand values of others.JusticeJustice is an essential ingredient in healthy societies,communities, and relationships with others. Thisvirtue is shown when people are fair mindedand even-handed rather than being biased by selfinterest.Justice also includes strengths that contributeto community well-being, such as workingcooperatively with others and taking the initiative todevelop and follow through on goals and projects.TemperanceTemperance is the strength to control excesses andrestrain impulses that may harm the self and others. Itexpresses the idea of “willpower” in the face of temptations.Temptations and the benefits of restraintmight be focused on eating; drinking; smoking;expressing of anger, hatred, or arrogance toward others;or excessive self-promotion at the expense ofothers. Chapter 8 described some of the psychologicalprocesses involved in self-control and selfdirectedactions that are relevant to temperance.Temperance is a kind of ongoing self-awareness andself-discipline that affirms the “look before you leap”dictum of everyday wisdom. Temperance alsoinvolves the ability to let go and forgive the indiscretionsand hurtful actions of others.TranscendenceTo transcend means to go beyond or rise above theordinary and the everyday. Transcendent thinkinglifts us out of the usual concrete preoccupations ofdaily life and out of an individualized sense of self byproviding a broader view of the world and the universe.Transcendence puts things in perspective andkeeps us from worrying about or striving for thingsthat don’t really matter. Religion and spirituality arethe clearest examples of transcendence because theyinvolve a belief in a higher power and a greater purposefor life. Whatever their various forms, transcendentbeliefs connect the individual to a moreencompassing understanding and a deeper meaningof life. The character strength of religiousness clearlyfits the virtue of transcendence.The other strengths listed under transcendencemay not seem to fit so well. Peterson and Seligman(2004) believe that the common theme here is providingopportunities to appreciate and develop a biggerpicture of the world that may provide a more enduringand satisfying understanding and purpose for life.“Appreciation of beauty is a strength that connectssomeone to excellence. Gratitude connects someonedirectly to goodness. Hope connects someone directlyto the dreamed-of future” (Peterson & Seligman, 2004,p. 519). Humor, they admit, seems a bit of stretch asan expression of transcendence. However, as theypoint out, humor keeps us from taking our selves andour virtues too seriously. It reminds us to “lighten up.”Laughter holds nothing sacred and can cut througheverything from self-righteousness to passionate conflictsover important issues. On a daily basis, Jay Lenoand David Letterman create humor out of pain andtragedy, from political scandals to the war in Iraq.Perhaps humor serves a protective function by connectingus directly to life’s absurdities and getting usto laugh at them.Measuring Strengths of CharacterA major goal of the VIA project was the developmentof measures for each of the 24 strengths ofcharacter. Based on existing knowledge and assessmentinstruments for each of the strengths, a 240-item self-report questionnaire was created. Tenitems were used to assess each character strength.For example, forgiveness is measured by items suchas, “I always allow others to leave their mistakes inthe past and make a fresh start.” Kindness is measuredby items like, “I’m never too busy to help afriend.” Curiosity is measured through items such as,“I am never bored.” Items like, “I always keep mypromises” measure integrity (Peterson & Seligman,2004, pp. 629–630). Respondents rate their degreeof endorsement on a scale from 1 (very unlike me)ISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.212 Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of Characterto 5 (very much like me). Rating summaries producea profile of an individual’s relative standing on eachof the 24 character strengths. The entire VIA inventoryof strengths takes 30 to 40 minutes to complete.You can take the VIA inventory of strengths onlineat www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/. Thereare several questionnaires on this site. You want toselect the VIA Signature Strengths Questionnaire,which gives you a character strength profile andidentifies your top five strengths, called “signature”strengths. You will need to log on to the site, providesome basic information, and create a passwordto take the test and have your responses scored.Although still a work in progress, the VIAStrengths Inventory has shown good internal consistencyand test–retest reliability. Individual self-ratingshave been validated against ratings by informedobservers. A youth version of the VIA inventory hasalso been developed and tested (see Peterson &Seligman, 2004). The inventory has been taken byover 350,000 people of all ages and backgrounds, representing50 countries and all 50 U.S. states (Peterson,2006; Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Seligman, Steen,Park, & Peterson, 2005).Analysis of character-strength profiles in relationto respondents’ backgrounds revealed several interestingpatterns. People from around the world show substantialagreement regarding the strengths rated as“most like me.” The most commonly endorsed characterstrengths in 50 countries were fairness, kindness,authenticity, gratitude, and open-mindedness. Theleast frequently endorsed strengths were prudence,self-regulation, and modesty. The correlations ofstrength rankings across nations were typically in the0.80 range. Despite widely different cultures, religions,and ethnic backgrounds, people seem to sharea common understanding of character strengths andvirtues. Within the United States, the same pattern ofrankings was apparent with the exception of religiousness,which was stronger in the southern states.Interestingly, there was less agreement inrankings between U.S. teenagers and U.S. adultsthan among adults from different countries.American adolescents rated hope, teamwork, andzest as “most like me,” while American adults gavehigher endorsements to authenticity, appreciation ofbeauty, leadership, and open-mindedness.Character strengths related to relationships(love) and positive emotions (e.g., zest, hope, andgratitude) were more strongly related to measures oflife satisfaction than were more intellectual-cognitivestrengths (e.g., curiosity and love of learning).“Strengths of the heart,” as Peterson and Seligmancall them (experiences such as kindness, love, andgratitude), contribute the most to our individualhappiness.Profiles of character strength also fit with thematching hypothesis discussed in Chapter 7. Peoplewere asked to think about personal experiencesinvolving their most rewarding and fulfilling jobsand hobbies, their “truest” love, and their bestfriends. The experiences they chose as the “mostsatisfying (they) had ever had” were those thatmatched their character strengths. For example,people strong in kindness enjoyed working as mentorsfor others. Those with curiosity as strength valuedand enjoyed romantic partners who wereadventuresome risk-takers.Finally, factor analysis revealed a five-factordimensional structure of the 24 character strengthsthat was similar (but not identical) to the originalorganization of strengths around the six virtues.The five factors were identified as strengths relatingto restraint (e.g., humility, prudence, andmercy), intelligence (e.g., creativity and curiosity),relationships (e.g., love and kindness), emotions(e.g., bravery, hope, and self-regulation), andreligion (e.g., spirituality and gratitude). Petersonand Seligman acknowledge the tentative nature ofthe organization of character strengths around thesix core virtues. Subsequent research will undoubtedlyrefine the virtue categories and the strengthsthat define them. For example, a recent studyexamining the factor structure of 42 positive charactertraits, including those from the VIA project,found only a partial overlap with the VIA six-virtuemodel (Haslam, Bain, & Neal, 2004). Results suggestedthat categories of self-control, love, wisdom,drive, and vivacity may better capture how peoplethink about and organize character strengths.Whatever the final organization, the VIA projecthas provided a useful starting point, by proposinga detailed list of character strengths and strong evidencefor their universality across time and culture.In the remainder of this chapter, we willreview research and theory related to the virtues ofwisdom and transcendence. Chapter 11 is focusedon the virtue of love. Literature relevant to otherstrengths has been discussed in previous chapters asdescribed below. Peterson and Seligman (2004) providea comprehensive review of research and theoryrelating to each character strength.ISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of Character 213WISDOM AS A FOUNDATIONALSTRENGTH AND VIRTUEFrom the ancient Greeks to the present, wisdom andliving a good life have been intimately connected.Despite cultural differences in the specifics (e.g.,Yang, 2001), wisdom is most generally understood tomean a philosophic understanding of what matters inlife and the practical knowledge of how to conduct alife that matters (Baltes & Freund, 2003b; Peterson &Seligman, 2004; Robinson, 1990). Theoretical wisdomand practical wisdom are thus wedded together andassumed to produce a happy and satisfying life. Thehappiness connected to wisdom has more to do withthe eudaimonic than with the hedonic perspective(see Chapter 4). Wisdom involves identifying and pursuingthe deeper and enduring purposes of life,beyond individual happiness. Wisdom is the ability tobalance your needs and happiness with those of others(Sternberg, 1998). Wisdom serves the commonrather than the purely individual good by finding abalance between the two. Many psychologists havecome to regard wisdom as a foundation for a life welllivedand one of humans’ most important strengths(e.g., Baltes & Freund, 2003a, 2003b; Baltes, Gluck, &Kunzman, 2002; Csikszentmihalyi & Rathunde, 1990;Sternberg, 1990, 1998a).What Is Wisdom?One way to explore the meaning of wisdom is toexamine people’s everyday understanding. Each ofus has some implicit idea about wisdom, drawnfrom cultural characterizations that are embodied inexemplars of “wise” people. Think of famous people,past and present, who exemplify your understandingof a wise person. Who comes to mind? Thetop 15 answers given by college students are shownin Table 10.3. Interestingly, along with well-knownwise people like Gandhi, Confucius, Jesus Christ,Martin Luther King, and Socrates, “wisdom nominees”also included Oprah Winfrey and Ann Landers(Paulus, Wehr, Harms, & Strasser, 2002).This study also investigated whether peopledistinguish among wisdom, intelligence, creativity,and sheer fame by having different groups of participantsmake nominations for each of the specifiedcharacteristics. Table 10.3 shows that the nominationsfor each of the categories include a blend ofhistoric and contemporary figures. Evidence of thedifferences people perceive among wise, intelligent,creative, and just famous people was shown by thelow degree of overlap in the various nominee lists.Only one person, Oprah Winfrey, was on both thewisdom list and the intelligence list. There was nooverlap between nominees for creativity and wisdom,a 27% overlap between creative and intelligentpeople, and a 7% overlap between wisdom and creativity.People do not use pure fame or notoriety as abasis for nominating wise, creative, or intelligentpeople. Sheer fame nominees never exceeded 20%of overlap with the other three categories.To get at the specific factors that define folkwisdom, researchers have asked people to identifyStrength Topic ChapterCuriosity Five Factor Model (FFM) Chapter 9Openness to experienceLove of Learning Approach/avoidance goals Chapter 7Intrinsic/extrinsic motivationPersistence Commitment Chapter 7Persistence and self-esteem Chapter 9Integrity Autonomy Chapters 2; 7Self-determination theoryPrudence FFM—conscientiousness Chapter 9Self-regulation Self-control and regulation Chapter 8Hope Optimism/hope Chapter 9ISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.214 Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of CharacterTABLE 10.3 Nominations for intelligent, creative, wise, and famous peopleIntelligent Creative Wise Sheer Fame1. Einstein Da Vinci Gandhi Princess Diana2. Bill Clinton Picasso Confucius Elvis Presley3. Da Vinci Michelangelo Jesus Christ Michael Jordan4. Prime Minister Mozart M. L. King Muhammad Ali5. Gates Spielberg Socrates Michael Jackson6. Shakespeare Shakespeare Mother Theresa Bill Clinton7. Hawking Michael Jackson Solomon Madonna8. Oprah Beethoven Buddha Wayne Gretzky9. Newton Walt Disney Pope Bill Gates10. Mozart Robin Williams Oprah Winfrey John F. Kennedy11. Edison Salvador Dali Winston Churchill Nelson Mandela12. Suzuki Madonna Dalai Lama Marilyn Monroe13. Madonna Sigmund Freud Ann Landers Adolph Hitler14. Gorbachev Alexander Graham Bell Nelson Mandela George Bush, Sr.15. Trudeau Margaret Atwood Queen Elizabeth Jesus ChristSource: Paulus, D. L., Wehr, P., Harms, P. D., & Strasser, D. H. (2002). Use of exemplars to revealimplicit types of intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1051–1062. CopyrightAmerican Psychological Association. Reprinted by permission.wise behaviors and have analyzed the characteristicsof wisdom described in cultural, historical, andphilosophical writings. For example, Sternberg(1985) asked a group of college professors andlay-persons to list characteristics they associatedwith wise people. Researchers then took the top40 wisdom characteristics and asked college studentsto sort them into piles, according to “whichbehaviors [were] likely to be found together in aperson.” Based on students’ sortings, Sternbergidentified six groupings of attributes that characterizea wise person:1. Reasoning ability: Uncommon ability to lookat a problem and solve it through good logicalreasoning ability, by applying knowledge toparticular problems, by integrating informationand theories in new ways, and by possessing ahuge store of knowledge.2. Sagacity: A keen understanding of humannature, thoughtfulness, fairness, good listeningabilities, knowledge of self, and placing valueon the advice and knowledge of others.3. Learning from ideas and the environment:Places value on ideas, is perceptive, and learnsfrom others’ mistakes.4. Judgment: Has good, sensible judgment at alltimes, takes a long-term rather than a short-termview, and thinks before acting and speaking.5. Expeditious use of information: Learnsand retains information from experience (bothmistakes and successes), willingness to changeone’s mind based on new experience.6. Perspicacity: Demonstrates perceptiveness,intuition, ability to see through things, readbetween the lines; and discern the truth andthe right thing to do.In his analysis of wisdom in philosophical writings,Baltes (1993) identified seven propertiesdescribing the nature of wisdom (taken from Baltes &Staudinger, 2000, Appendix A, p. 135).ISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of Character 2151. “Wisdom addresses important and difficultquestions and strategies about the conduct andmeaning of life.”2. “Wisdom includes knowledge about the limitsof knowledge and the uncertainties of theworld.”3. “Wisdom represents a truly superior level ofknowledge, judgment, and advice.”4. “Wisdom constitutes knowledge with extraordinaryscope, depth, measure, and balance.”5. “Wisdom involves a perfect synergy of mindand character, that is, an orchestration ofknowledge and virtues.”6. “Wisdom represents knowledge used for thegood or well-being of oneself and that ofothers.”7. “Wisdom is easily recognized when manifested,although difficult to achieve and specify.”Wisdom, then, is not the same thing as technicalknowledge, “book learning,” fame, or intelligenceas measured by an IQ test. Having lots ofeducation, being a “smart” person, or being anexpert in a given area (like computer technologyor finance) does not by itself qualify a personas wise. Many people are clever, intelligent, orexperts in their field, but far fewer are wise.Wisdom embodies a particular kind of knowledge,intelligence, and judgment focused on the conductof a virtuous life. Wise people have learned life’smost important lessons. The broad scope of theirunderstanding includes the uncertainties of life—that is, knowing what cannot be definitivelyknown. Two prominent theories attempt to capturewisdom’s essential elements: Sternberg’s balancetheory and the work of Paul Baltes on wisdom asexpertise in the conduct of life (often referred to asthe Berlin wisdom model).Theories of WisdomBALANCE THEORY Sternberg’s balance theorydescribes the practical intelligence necessary to takewise action when confronting difficult and complexlife situations (Sternberg, 1990, 1998a). Wisdom isbased on tacit knowledge that is built up over timeas people learn how to pursue and achieve valuedgoals successfully. Tacit knowledge is the actionorientedcomponent of practical intelligence(i.e., knowing “how” rather than know “what”).Sternberg believes that knowledge of how tolive successfully is learned in the trenches of lifeexperience—not through formal education or directinstruction from others. Tacit knowledge becomesthe foundation for wisdom when it is used toachieve a common good rather than a self-interestedgood, and when it is focused on finding ways to balancethe often conflicting interests and choicesinvolved in real-life situations.According to Sternberg’s balance theory,wise people are skillful in balancing three interestsand three possible courses of action in arriving atsolutions to life problems. The three interests are(a) one’s own interests and needs (intrapersonal);(b) the interests and needs of important others likea spouse, friend, or employer (interpersonal); and(c) those related to community, country, environment,or religion (extrapersonal). Balancing thesemultiple interests to achieve a common goodrequires consideration of three courses of actionconcerning whether and how much individualsneed to (a) change themselves (adaptation);(b) change their environment, including others; or(c) select a new environment altogether.Consider the following example of a lifedilemma that confronts many “baby boomers,”often referred to as the “sandwich generation”because they are “sandwiched” between the needsof their aging parents and their own children.Imagine yourself in this situation. You and yourspouse both have successful, but demandingcareers. You have two children, one child is in collegeand the other, a sophomore in high school,will be off to college in two years. Retirement isstill a number of years off, in part because of theneed to pay your children’s college expenses.Your aging parents are becoming increasingly frail.They have several significant health issues andcannot live by themselves much longer. Your parentswant to maintain their independence and donot want to move into an assisted living facility ornursing home. What would be a wise course ofaction here?To meet Sternberg’s criteria for wisdom, youmust find ways to balance your own interests andthose of your family with the increasing need forsupport required by your parents’ deteriorating situation.You must consider and find answers to questionslike the following: How much should yourown family have to sacrifice, and how much shouldyour parents have to sacrifice? How can you balanceall the interests in this case? In terms of specificISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.216 Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of Characteractions, the question becomes, whose environmentand life must change the most? Yours? Your family’s?Your parents’? Should you adjust your life to yourparents’ needs and move closer to your parents?Should they move in with you, or nearby? Shouldyou try to place them in an assisted living facility?These are obviously hard choices! It’s not easy toknow what balance of interests and actions constitutea wise solution. Wisdom does not lead to a perfectbalance of interests and actions, in the sensethat everyone will be happy and won’t have toaccommodate change or make sacrifices. Instead,Sternberg’s idea is that wisdom means applying tacitknowledge to find the best possible solution thatbalances both multiple interests and possible actionsinvolving adaptation and change. A balance of interestsdefines a common good, and balanced actionsserving a common good define wisdom.WISDOM AS EXPERT KNOWLEDGE IN THE CONDUCTOF LIFE Baltes and his colleagues at the Max PlanckInstitute in Berlin, Germany, have developed a set ofspecific criteria for defining and measuring wisdomthat provides the basis for an ongoing program ofempirical studies. In their Berlin wisdom model,wisdom is defined as expert knowledge concerningthe “fundamental pragmatics of life” (Baltes, 1997;Baltes & Smith, 1990, Baltes & Staudinger, 2000). Thephrase, “fundamental pragmatics of life” refers to“. . . knowledge and judgment about the essence ofthe human condition and the ways and means ofplanning, managing, and understanding a good life”(Baltes & Staudinger, 2000, p. 124). Wisdom isassessed according to the following five criteria.1. Factual knowledge: Extensive knowledge ofthe pragmatics of life. Knowing the “whats” ofthe human condition and human nature (e.g.,differences among people, social relationships,society, social norms, etc).2. Procedural knowledge: Knowing “how.”Strategies and approaches for solving life’s problems,achieving goals, dealing with conflict, etc.3. Lifespan contextualism: Knowledge of differentlife settings and social environments (e.g.,work, education, family, leisure, and friends),and how these roles and settings change overtime, both for individuals and for society.4. Relativism of values: Awareness of individualand cultural differences in values and life priorities.Wise people are committed to the commongood, so this does not mean “anything goes.”Relativism means consideration and sensitivityto value differences among people from differentbackgrounds.5. Awareness and management of uncertainty:Recognizing the limits of knowledge. Thefuture cannot be fully known ahead of time. Anunderstanding of how to cope effectively withthe uncertainty of knowledge about the world.Because wisdom is defined by superior knowledgein the conduct of life, few people are expectedto meet all five of the wisdom criteria. Measures ofwisdom indicate people’s degree of wisdom-relatedknowledge. Wisdom is assessed by presentingresearch participants with challenging, hypotheticallife situations and dilemmas, and asking them todescribe aloud what should be considered and whatshould be done in response to each dilemma.Participant responses are tape-recorded and evaluatedby a panel of trained judges, who assess thedegree of correspondence between participants’responses and the five wisdom criteria. The lifedilemmas include situations like the following twoexamples (from Baltes & Staudinger, 2000, p. 126):1. “Someone receives a phone call from a goodfriend who says that he or she cannot go onlike this and has decided to commit suicide.What might one/the person take into considerationand do in such a situation?”2. “In reflecting over their lives, people sometimesrealize that they have not achieved whatthey had once planned to achieve. Whatshould they do and consider?”Judges’ evaluations of respondents’ answersshow substantial inter-judge agreement; test–retestreliability is also high. Sample excerpts from lowratedand high-rated responses are given below(Baltes & Staudinger, 2000, Appendix B, p. 136) forthe following life dilemma:“A 15-year old girl wants to get marriedright away.What should one/she considerand do?”Example of a Response Judges Rated asLow-Wisdom:“A 15-year old girl wants to get married?No, no way, marrying at age 15 would beISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of Character 217utterly wrong. One has to tell the girl thatmarriage is not possible. [After furtherprobing] It would be irresponsible to supportsuch an idea.No, this is just crazy.”Example of a Response Judges Rated asHigh-Wisdom:“Well, on the surface, this seems like aneasy problem. On average, marriage for a15-year old girl is not a good thing. Butthere are situations where the average casedoes not fit. Perhaps in this instance, speciallife circumstances are involved, suchthat the girl has a terminal illness. Or thegirl has just lost her parents. And also, thisgirl may live in another culture or historicalperiod. Perhaps she was raised with avalue system different from ours. In addition,one also has to think about adequateways of talking with the girl and to considerher emotional state.”Using the life dilemmas measure, Baltes andhis colleagues have provided some interestinganswers to wisdom-related questions (see Baltes &Staudinger, 2000; Baltes et al., 2002; Kramer, 2000;Kunzmann & Baltes, 2003, for research summaries).Does Wisdom Increase with Age? Conventionalwisdom about wisdom suggests that we becomewiser as we age and accumulate more life experiences.Studies provide only partial support for thisbelief. Wisdom has been found to increase dramaticallyduring adolescence and young adulthood; itthen appears to remain relatively stable until age 75,when it begins to decline. Getting older, by itself,does not enhance wisdom. However, examination ofthe top 20% of wise people showed that a higherproportion of the “very wise” were middle-aged(Baltes & Staudinger, 2000).Are “Experts” Wiser than Non-Experts?Clinical psychologists have extensive experiencein helping people review, plan, and manage theirlives. They also might be expected to develop anunderstanding of the dilemmas of life throughtheir clinical training and work as psychotherapists.Are they wiser than comparably educatedindividuals whose careers are not focused onlife dilemmas? Several studies (see Baltes &Staudinger, 2000) found that clinical psychologistsdid show higher wisdom scores than a controlgroup of non-psychologist professionals—a findingthat pleased the second author of your text,who is a practicing clinical psychologist. However,several considerations may qualify this finding(sorry, Marie!). First, clinical psychologists didscore significantly higher than members of thecontrol group on the wisdom measure, but theirscores did not approach the top end of the scale.(Specifically, the scale ran from 1 to 7, with 7reflecting a high level of wisdom. Clinical psychologistsscored an average of 3.8, just above thescale’s midpoint.) Second, it is entirely possiblethat individuals with a propensity toward wisdomself-select into clinical psychology careers. In linewith this possibility, professional specializationaccounted for more variation in wisdom scoresthan did intelligence and personality factors.Third, Baltes wondered whether the superiorperformance of clinical psychologists might reflecta professional bias imbedded in the measureof wisdom. That is, since the test-maker and thetest-takers are both psychologists, do clinical psychologistshave an edge over non-psychologistsbecause they think more like the test developersthan other respondents? To find out, researcherscompared the performance of clinical psychologiststo a sample of individuals nominated as wiseby an independent panel of non-psychologists.Wisdom nominees were found to perform justas well as the clinical psychologists, suggestingthat the measure of wisdom is not biased againstnon-psychologists.Are Wise People Happier? Given the connectionof wisdom to a good life, one might think the answerwould be yes. However, wisdom is connected todeeper meanings and dilemmas of life that gobeyond the simple pursuit of happiness. Wisdom isnot guided by the “pleasure principle” (Kunzmann &Baltes, 2003). It is possible that wisdom might evenreduce personal happiness. If breadth of factualknowledge and complex understandings lead togreater awareness of pain and suffering in the worldand the uncertainties of life, perhaps wisdom comeswith an emotional price tag. Perhaps ignorancereally is bliss. Another possibility is that wise peoplemay excel at coming to terms with the emotional upsand downs of life. Their expertise in living a goodlife may include more peace of mind and lessextreme mood swings.ISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.218 Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of CharacterTo evaluate these questions, Kunzmann andBaltes (2003) examined the relationship of wisdomto affective experience in a sample includingyoung adults (15–20 years), middle-aged adults(30–40 years), and older adults (60–70 years).Higher wisdom scores were associated with lessfrequent experiencing of negative affects (suchas anger, sadness, fear, disappointment, shame,and indifference), less frequent experiencing ofpleasure-oriented, positive affects (such as happiness,cheerfulness, amusement, exuberance, andpride), but more frequent experiencing of feelingsrelated to affective involvement with the environment(such as feelings of interest, alertness, inspiration,attentiveness, and active engagement).Kunzmann and Baltes argue that these results supportthe connection of wisdom to emotional regulation.Wise people, perhaps because of their “bigpicture view” and skill in self-control, are lessreactive to life events, whether positive or negative.In addition, wise people are not orientedtoward pursuing pleasure or avoiding pain.Instead, they are energized by emotions thatenhance active involvement and learning. Wisepeople are motivated to explore and understandthe complexities and paradoxes of life. It makessense that wisdom would be associated with morefrequent experience of emotions that motivate andresult from active engagement with the world(e.g., inspiration, interest, and attentiveness).Wisdom in Action: The (SOC) Modelof Effective Life ManagementBaltes and his colleagues have recently begun todescribe a wisdom-based framework for identifyingthe essential features of a good life (Baltes &Freund, 2003a, 2003b; Baltes & Staudinger, 2000;Freund & Baltes, 2002; Kramer, 2000; Kunzmann,2004). Wisdom, as defined in Baltes and colleagues’earlier work, involved an understanding ofboth the deeper purposes and meanings of a goodlife (what) and an understanding of the means bywhich a good life could be achieved (how). TheBerlin wisdom model was initially directed more atknowledge-related wisdom than at wisdom-relatedaction. Recent work has shifted to include a morespecific model of action that describes howtheoretical wisdom about what matters in life maydirect practical wisdom concerning how to live alife that matters. Practical wisdom is described bytheir SOC Model of Effective Life Management(SOC refers to “select, optimize, and compensate”).The model describes the role of wisdom in effectivelife management and optimal human functioning(see Figure 10.1).OptimalHumanDevelopmentWisdomDefining the Meta-rangeofDesirable Goals,Desirable MeansSOCEffective Life Management andGoal Pursuit: Orchestration ofSelection,Optimization, andCompensationFIGURE 10.1 The SOC Model of Effective Life ManagementSource: Baltes, P. B., & Freund, A. M. (2003b). The intermarriageof wisdom and selective optimization with compensation: Twometa-heuristics guiding the conduct of life. In C. L. M. Keyes& J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the lifewell-lived (pp. 249–273). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation. Copyright American Psychological Association.Reprinted by permission.ISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of Character 219The SOC model does not specify details concerningmanagement of a successful life. Thespecifics are dependent on each individual’s needs,values, personality, resources, stage of life, andenvironmental context. The SOC specifies three generalstrategies, applicable across the life span, forhow to achieve personally important goals. In manyways, the selection, optimization, and compensationmodel describes an approach to life planning thatserves to organize the major research findings concerningpersonal goals and the self-regulationprocesses necessary to achieve them (discussed inChapters 7 and 8). Baltes and his colleagues makethe connection between goal research and SOCexplicit in their recent work (e.g., Baltes & Freund,2003a, 2003b).SELECTION Selection is the first step in life planningand is an integral part of personal development andwell-being. Choosing appropriate goals among avariety of options contributes to a purposeful, meaningful,and organized life. While the definition of“appropriate” depends on a person’s resources andlife circumstances, goal research provides someguidance in distinguishing between goals thatenhance and goals that detract from well-being.Approach goals that are personally expressive,related to intrinsic needs, and freely chosen arelikely to inspire strong commitment, successfulachievement, and increased well-being and lifesatisfaction.OPTIMIZATION Optimization refers to all the choicesand actions that lead to successful goal achievement.Optimization overlaps with many of theprocesses described in Chapter 8. Goal achievementinvolves self-regulation, monitoring of progress,belief in personal control and competence, and abilityto delay short-term gratification in the service ofpursuing long-term goals. The optimization elementalso includes the importance of repeated practiceand effort in developing skills necessary for goalattainment.COMPENSATION Compensation refers to developingalternative means for achieving and maintaininggoals when previously effective means are blocked.Compensation strategies might involve finding newmeans and resources, activating unused resources,or relying on others for help and support. A studentwho loses a lucrative summer job that pays half ofher yearly college expenses might take out a studentloan, dip further into her savings, or ask her parentsfor more financial help to compensate for the dropin financial resources.In an empirical test of the SOC model, Freundand Baltes (2002) developed a self-report questionnaireto assess people’s endorsement of SOC. Wellbeing,personality, and cognitive style were alsoassessed. Study participants ranged in age from 14to 89 years. Items measuring selection focused onthe clarity, importance, and prioritizing of personalgoals, and on the degree of goal commitment.Optimization items asked about expenditure ofeffort, goal planning, and modeling one’s behaviorafter the strategies used by successful others.Compensation was measured by statements concerningefforts to find other means of goal achievement,renewed effort and commitment, and seekinghelp from others when initial paths to goal achievementwere blocked.Two of the study’s noteworthy findings relatedSOC to age and well-being. Consistent with the patternof findings from wisdom research, endorsementof SOC strategies increased with age from young tomiddle age and then showed a decrease in lateadulthood. Middle age appears to be the peakperiod of refined skill in using SOC behaviors foreffective life management. Each component of theSOC model was significantly related to Ryff’s six-partmeasure of psychological well-being (see Chapter 2).This measure is based on the eudaimonic conceptionof well-being, and evaluates a person’s degreeof self-acceptance, personal growth, sense of purpose,environmental mastery, autonomy, and positiverelationship with others. Freund and Baltes alsofound a strong positive relationship between SOCstrategies and higher levels of positive emotions.The SOC model appears to be an informative frameworkfor thinking about the determinants of wellbeingacross the life span (see Baltes & Freund,2003b, for a review of other SOC confirming studies).The SOC model specifies the general skills necessaryto achieve personal goals and compensate forsetbacks, and recognizes the importance of goals inrelation to well-being. The SOC model both drawsfrom and affirms the major findings of goal researchdescribed in Chapters 7 and 8.You may have noticed that the SOC model doesnot specify what goals a person should choose topursue. Rather, it focuses only on means. As Baltesand Freund note, “Criminals and Mafia bosses . . . canISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.220 Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of Characterbe masters of SOC” (2003a, p. 30). In other words,the model does not address questions about whatgoals are good or virtuous, or what means for goalachievement are acceptable and desirable froman ethical or a moral point of view. Baltes and hiscolleagues argue that it is the role of wisdom to determinewhat goals and what means are the most importantand morally desirable. “Wisdom provides aselector concerning which goals and means areof fundamental significance in the life course and,in addition, are ethically and morally desirable”(Baltes & Freund, 2003a, p. 34). In other words,because of the breadth and depth of their understandingof life and virtue, wise people would beexpected to devote themselves to personally meaningfulgoals that contribute both to their own goodand to the common good.In summary, a good life, from the perspectiveof wisdom in action, may be described as infusingeffective life management strategies with the knowledgeand virtue of wisdom. In the words of Baltesand Freund (2003a, p. 33), “. . . we propose thatwisdom, the knowledge of the fundamental pragmaticsof life, be viewed as a desirable end stateof human development that can be lived andimplemented through selective optimization withcompensation.”Focus on Theory: Wisdomor Self-Control as Master Virtues?It is easy to think of wisdom as a master virtue. Thedevelopment of wisdom would seem to include aconcomitant development of other virtuous behaviorssuch as compassion, kindness, humility, fairness,and prudence. In fact, we think of wise peopleas wise, largely because they embody multiplevirtues. It is somewhat harder to think of a singleother virtue that has this foundational quality.However, Baumeister and Exline (1999) argue thatself-control might also be a candidate for mastervirtue status. They describe self-control as the“moral muscle” behind many virtuous behaviors.Their thesis is built on a number of interrelated andempirically-grounded arguments (see Chapter 8 fora review of self-control research).Baumeister and Exline are among an increasingnumber of psychologists who believe that explorationsof morality and virtue have been neglected bypsychologists. Virtue and morality are highly importantpersonal qualities that may be more defining ofan individual’s identity than the traits studied by personalitypsychologists. For example, they note thatpeople regard moral traits such as honesty, trustworthiness,and fidelity, as among the most desirablequalities for a potential spouse.One important function of morality and virtueis to facilitate the development and maintenance ofharmonious relationships, which are criticallyimportant to the well-being of individuals and society.Major research reviews conclude that the needto belong is one of the most fundamental humanmotives, the fulfillment of which is a foundation forwell-being (e.g., Baumeister & Leary, 1995). A majorimpediment to relationship harmony occurs whenpeople pursue self-interested needs at the expenseof their relationships. This might involve relationsbetween individuals, or between individuals and thebroader society. The crucial role of morality withincultures, and virtue within individuals, is to controlselfish interests for the sake of the greater commongood. Much of what we regard as virtuous behaviorand much of what we know about successful relationshipsinvolves putting needs of others ahead ofyour own. Restraining self-interest means exertingself-control. Baumeister and Exline believe that selfcontrolis the psychological foundation for mostvirtues and that the opposite of virtue, namely sinand vice, result from failed self-control.As Baumeister and Exline note, self-controlfailure seems clearly involved in the Seven DeadlySins described in Christian theology: gluttony,sloth, greed, lust, envy, anger, and pride. Each ofthese sins and vices exemplifies one or anotherform of failed control: gluttony by self-indulgenceand excessive pursuit of pleasure; sloth or lazinessby failed initiative and self-motivation; greed, lust,and envy by selfish and exploitive dealings withothers centered on gratifying only individualneeds; anger by lack of emotional restraint andimpulse control; and pride by self-aggrandizementat the expense of others.The relation of sin to failed self-control finds acounterpart in the connection between virtue andthe exertion of self-control. For example, prudencerefers to reasoned action guided by consideration oflong-term implications rather than immediate needsor opportunities. Delay of gratification and stayingon course with a long-term goal in mind are centralfeatures of self-control and self-regulation. Similarly,justice requires control of self-interest in upholdingstandards of conduct aimed at the common good.ISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of Character 221The virtue of temperance (which refers to exercisingemotional restraint and avoiding excesses) alsoclearly requires self-control.In addition to its links with specific virtues,self-control and self-regulation also help explainhow virtue may guide behavior. Recall fromChapter 8 that self-regulation involves monitoringand changing behavior in relationship to a standard.Applied to personal goals this means establishinga goal, monitoring progress, and alteringactions and the self over time to achieve a goal.Baumeister and Exline argue that virtue’s role inbehavior fits this same general pattern. Most of usaspire to be morally responsible people. Each of ushas moral standards that can be used to monitorour ongoing behavior. If we maintain some level ofself-awareness, we know the extent to which ouractions are consistent or inconsistent with our standards.Feelings of guilt are clear signals of inconsistency.Self-control is required in order to conformto our own standards, rather than giving in to temptationsor momentary emotional impulses. It is thisself-control that keeps behavior in line with moralstandards that Baumeister and Exline believe is the“moral muscle” underlying virtue; thus, virtue isdependent on self-control. “Vice signifies failure ofself-control, whereas virtue involves the consistent,disciplined exercise of self control. Self-control canfairly be regarded as the master virtue” (Baumeister& Exline, 1999, p. 1189).TRANSCENDENCE: RELIGIONAND SPIRITUALITYThe Search for MeaningViktor Frankl (1976/1959) was an early psychiatristwho argued that finding meaning in life was essentialfor survival. Frankl’s argument was based on hisexperiences as a prisoner in multiple Nazi deathcamps during World War II. His observations convincedhim that surviving the horrors of the campsdepended, in large part, upon people’s ability tomake sense of their experience; that is, their abilityto find some sustaining meaning and hopeful visionfor the future. The fact that many in the deathcamps did find such meaning was testimony tohumans’ ability to find meaningfulness, even in theface of immense suffering. Following Frankl’s lead,many psychologists have come to regard the pursuitof meaning as a central feature of human life(e.g., Baumeister, 1991). Humans are “meaningmakers” in the sense of seeking and creating anunderstanding of the specific and broader purposesof life (Bruner, 1990).The importance of meaning may reflect a connectionto basic human needs. In his book,Meanings of Life, Roy Baumeister (1991) describesfour needs that underlie the pursuit of meaning: purpose,value, self-efficacy, and self-worth. These fourneeds help explain the basis for people’s motivationto find meaning in life, but they do not specify thespecific sources of need satisfaction. The sources ofneed satisfaction (and thus, of meaning) are, to someextent, interchangeable. Baumeister gives the exampleof career women who leave work to have children.If raising children becomes a significant sourceof personal meaning, the desire to return to theircareers may fade. The life meaning involved in acareer has been replaced or interchanged with thatof raising children. This interchangeability alsoapplies to religion, although Baumeister acknowledgesthat most religious people would find ridiculousor offensive the idea that their religion isinterchangeable with another. Baumeister’s point isthat, at a conceptual level, all religions seem to servesimilar psychological purposes, despite beliefs in theunique positive qualities of “my” religion expressedby adherents.The need for purpose refers to a desire fordirection in life. Organizing life around the pursuitof personally significant goals and ideal end statesare major ways people fulfill their need for purpose(see Chapter 7). Working on, making progresstoward, and achieving important goals and idealsare important sources of meaning. A second need isfor value. The need for value is fulfilled by findingjustifications for actions that affirm the positive valueof one’s life. People want to believe their actions are“right” or “good” as judged by a system of values.Values and codes of conduct provide standards forjudging right, wrong, moral and immoral acts andprovide guideposts for evaluating specific actionsand the overall quality of life.A third need is for a sense of self-efficacy.People need to feel that they have control over thethings that happen to them so that life does notseem chaotic, capricious, and beyond their control.Meeting challenges and accomplishing goals are twomajor ways that people develop feelings of selfefficacy.Control may take the form of changing theenvironment to meet individual needs and goals, orISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.222 Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of Characterchanging the self in order to adapt to the environmentwhen the environment cannot be changed(see Rothbaum, Weisz, & Snyder, 1982, and theintroduction to Chapter 8 in this textbook). Animportant form of control, particularly relevant toreligion and spirituality, is interpretive control. AsBaumeister notes, being able to understand whythings occur is an important source of meaning.Even if we cannot change the outcome, findingmeaningful interpretations for life events contributesto a sense of control and provides a basis for adaptationto life’s challenges. For example, acceptingthe reality of death may be easier for people whobelieve life and death are part of God’s plan andthat heaven awaits them after they die.Self-worth is the fourth basis for meaning.Self-worth reflects people’s need for positive selfevaluationand self-esteem (see Chapter 9). Unlikevalues, which are tied primarily to morality, a senseof self-worth may be based on a variety of nonmoralqualities and activities. Talents, accomplishments,recognition and admiration from others, andfavorable social comparisons (i.e., doing better thanothers) may all contribute to a sense of self-worth.The four needs provide a way of thinkingabout the psychological foundations of a meaningfullife and the role religion plays in addressingwhat Emmons (1999a) called people’s “ultimateconcerns”—the highest-order meanings of humanexistence. From Baumeister’s perspective, life islikely to be experienced as meaningful when peoplehave a strong sense of purpose, clear values formaking moral judgments, beliefs in their own selfefficacy/control, and a positive sense of self-worth.In contrast, a less meaningful or meaningless liferesults from the loss of sustaining purpose, confusionabout values, loss of perceived control, andfeelings of low self-worth. Meaning and meaningfulnessexist at different levels, from the relatively concreteand here-and-now actions of daily life to theabstract and enduring (eternal) meanings of humanexistence. Religion and spirituality offer satisfactionof each the four needs at the highest level of meaning.As Baumeister notes, religion defines the purposeof life, provides a code of moral values, offersinterpretive control by explaining the meaning andorigins of life, and provides a basis for self-worthwithin a religious framework (e.g., affirmation byfellow believers, God’s love of the faithful).As mentioned above, Baumeister regards religionsas being, to some extent, interchangeable intheir ability to satisfy the four needs for meaning.Despite differences in beliefs, doctrines, and practices,major world religions and spiritual traditionsappear to share a common set of core features, andseem to serve a common set of human needs.Anthropologist Joseph Campbell has probably donemore than anyone to promote an understanding ofthe universal aspects of religion for a broad culturalaudience. In his best selling books, The Power ofMyth (1988) and Myths to Live By (1993), and hiswidely watched and praised PBS series on thePower of Myth with Bill Moyers, Campbell hasdescribed the universal questions of existenceaddressed by Eastern and Western religions, and thepower of religion’s answers to guide and transformpeople’s lives.Religion provides answers to fundamentalquestions concerning human existence. How didlife and the universe begin? What happens afteryou die? What is the purpose of life on earth? Whatmoral values should guide human actions?Certainly religion is not the only basis for addressingthese questions. Science, nature, and humanitarianphilosophies may also provide answers. It isalso true that some percentage of people are simplynot interested in, or do not believe that thereare answers to, life’s ultimate mysteries. Yet, surveyresearch suggests that the vast majority ofAmericans address these questions from a spiritualor religious perspective (see Gallup & Lindsay,1999, for reviews and Chapter 6 in Spilka, Hood,Hunsberger, & Gorsuch, 2003). In national surveysover the last 50 years, between 90 and 95% ofAmericans said they believed in God or a higherpower and nearly 90% say they pray. Nearly 70%are members of a church or synagogue and 40%report regular attendance. Polls also show that60% of Americans said religion was very importantin their lives and another 26 to 30% report thatreligion is fairly important. Religious affiliations inthe United States are dominated by the Protestantand Roman Catholic faiths. Summarizing data fromthe U.S. Census Bureau, Spilka and his colleagues(2003) report that in 1999, the breakdown of religiousaffiliations was as follows: 55% of Americansidentified themselves as Protestants; 28% asRoman Catholics; 2% as Jewish; 6% as “other”; and8% reported no religious affiliation. Interestingly,the percentage of people in the United Stateswho believe in God is higher than in mostEuropean countries (see Table 10.4). All theseISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of Character 223TABLE 10.4 Percentages of people in various countries who believe in Godand have had religious experiencesCountry Belief in God (%) Religious experience (%)United States 95 41Czech Republic 6 11Denmark 57 15France 52 24Great Britain 69 16Hungary 65 17Ireland 95 13Italy 86 31Netherlands 57 22Northern Ireland 92 26Norway 59 16Poland 94 16Russia 52 13Spain 82 19Sweden 54 12Source: Spilka, B., Hood, R. W., Jr., Hunsberger, B., & Gorsuch, R. (2003). The psychology of religion: Anempirical approach. New York: Guilford Press. Copyright The Guilford Press. Reprinted by permission.statistics speak to the importance of religion inAmerican individual and cultural life.Religion and Spirituality: The Diversityof ViewsDefining religion and spirituality are formidable tasks.At the operational level, researchers often bypass definitionalcomplexities by relying on global self-reportmeasures (see Tsang & McCullough, 2003, for a reviewof measurement issues). People might be asked to ratetheir degree of religiousness, report on their frequencyof church attendance, or indicate their denominationalaffiliation. Despite the fact that these global measuresare often found to bear significant relationships tohealth and well-being, they do not tell us much aboutwhat it means to be religious, nor do they distinguishspirituality from other concerns in life. For example, aperson might go to church primarily because it’s acongenial social activity and not because of religiouscommitments or concern with spirituality.Empirical studies affirm the diversity of viewsamong social scientists, clergy, and lay-persons concerningwhat it means to be religious (e.g.,Zinnbauer et al., 1997). For example, Pargament andhis colleagues (Pargament, Tarakeshwar, Ellison, &Wulff, 2001) asked college students and clergymembers to rate the degree of religiousness for 100profiles of hypothetical people. Each profile representeda different combination of 10 cues, such aschurch attendance, frequency of prayer and meditation,feeling God’s presence, monetary donations toa church, knowledge of church doctrines, personalbenefits from religious beliefs (comfort, support,and meaning), and altruistic acts of giving. Everyindividual in the study showed a relatively consistentreliance on certain cues in making her or hisjudgments. However, there was little consensusamong or between students and clergy on exactlywhich cues indicate a “religious person.” Amongstudents, personal benefits were used by a narrow55% majority and among clergy, 86% relied onISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.224 Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of Characterchurch attendance as an important cue in rating apersons’ degree of religiousness. With these twoexceptions, religiousness meant very different thingsto different individual participants.Researchers have struggled to develop definitionsthat are specific enough to capture what isunique and distinctive about religion and spirituality,but broad enough to apply to all or most religions.Given the diversity of views, it is clear thatno single definition of religion and spirituality willbe satisfactory to all scholars or individual religiouspractitioners. This state of affairs is succinctlycaptured in a frequently cited quote byYinger (1967): “any definition of religion is likelyto be satisfactory only to its author” (p. 18).However, empirical and conceptual work in thepsychology of religion has expanded dramaticallyover the last decade. Prominent researchers in thefield have begun to find some common ground inthe variety of definitions offered by individualresearchers and theorists (e.g., Emmons, 1999a,1999b; Hill & Pargament, 2003, Hill et al., 2000;Pargament, 1997; Zinnbauer, Pargament, & Scott,1999; Zinnbauer et al., 1997).At the center of recent conceptualizations is therelationship between religion and spirituality. Withinpsychology, since the classic work of William James(1985) (The Varieties of Religious Experience), religionhas been regarded as having both an institutionalmeaning and an individual meaning. As aninstitution, religion is an organized set of beliefs,practices, doctrines, and places of worship (e.g.,churches or synagogues) associated with the differentworld religions and their denominations. Theindividual meaning of religion concerns the personalside of faith, defined by a person’s unique relationship,experiences, and activities with the object ofher or his faith (e.g., God, a religious doctrine, a revelation,God’s love, and Ultimate Truth).In recent times, the complementary and overlappingrelationship between the individual andinstitutional aspects of religion has been defined asmore dichotomous, particularly in American culture(Hill et al., 2000; Zinnbauer et al., 1999). You haveprobably heard someone say that he or she is “spiritual,but not religious.” Spirituality has, more andmore, come to define the subjective, individualaspects of religious experience, while religion refersto the fixed doctrines and practices of organized religions.The separation of religion and spiritualitywas particularly prominent within American cultureduring the 1960s. The “counter-culture” that emergedfrom the youthful days of the baby-boomer generationwas highly critical of established institutions,including religion. Religion became associated withdogma, authoritarianism, blind faith, and conformity.Many baby boomers left established religions inapparent agreement with humanistic psychologists,like Abraham Maslow (1968), who argued that spiritualconcerns could be pursed outside of traditionalreligions. Many of the “New Age” philosophies thatdeveloped during this period appealed to babyboomers’ spiritual needs and desire for growth withoutformal ties to traditional religions. Many psychologistsbelieve that the separation of spirituality andreligion within popular culture has led to an unfortunatepolarization (e.g., Hill & Pargament, 2003; Hillet al., 2000; Zinnbauer et al., 1999). Individual spiritualityis regarded as “good” and institutional religionas “bad,” from the perspective of a person’s individualcharacter and development. Some psychologistshave even regarded religion as an impediment tospiritual understanding (see Hill et al., 2000;Zinnbauer et al., 1999, for reviews).The need to explore the interrelationship ofspirituality and religion is suggested by empiricalstudies showing that most people, at least within theUnited States, consider themselves both religiousand spiritual. This was clearly shown in a study byZinnbauer and colleagues (1997). The 346 participantsin the study represented a variety of religiousbackgrounds and ranged in age from 15 to 84, witha mean age of 40. One measure in the study askedparticipants to choose one of four statements thatbest defined their religiousness and spirituality(Zinnbauer et al., 1997). The choices were: “I amspiritual and religious; I am spiritual but not religious;I am religious but not spiritual; I am neitherspiritual nor religious” (p. 553). A strong majority ofthe participants (74%) endorsed the religious andspiritual statement; 19% described themselves asspiritual but not religious; 4% as religious but notspiritual; and 3% as neither spiritual nor religious.Participants were also asked about the relationshipbetween religiousness and spirituality. Only a smallpercentage (6.7%) indicated that religiousness andspirituality were completely different, with no overlapin meaning, or endorsed a belief that they werethe same concept and overlapped completely(2.6%). Overall, this study suggests two major conclusions.First, most people do distinguish betweenreligiousness and spirituality. Second, a majority ofISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of Character 225people identify themselves as both religious andspiritual.Zinnbauer and his colleagues also investigateddifferences between the 74% of people who identifiedthemselves as spiritual and religious (SR group)and the 19% of people who considered themselvesspiritual but not religious (SnR group). Interestingly,the SnR group fit the general profile of babyboomers. Compared to the SR group, they grew upwith parents who attended church less frequently,were more educated and individualistic, were lesslikely to hold orthodox or traditional Christianbeliefs, were more likely to be agnostic and holdnon-traditional “New Age” beliefs, and were somewhatmore likely to have a negative conception ofreligiousness as reflecting a need to feel superior toothers, or as something people pursue for extrinsicreasons (such as social image and status). The SRgroup was associated with church attendance, frequencyof prayer, and orthodox religious beliefs.These results are generally in line with a recentstudy that found that the personality and social attitudeprofiles of “spiritual-but-not-religious” peoplewere very different than those who held more traditionalreligious beliefs (Saucier & Skrzypinska,2006). Taken in total, these findings suggest bothdifferences and commonalities in people’s understandingof religion and spirituality. The most recentwork in the psychology of religion acknowledgesthe many differences, but focuses on what religionand spirituality seem to have in common for themajority of people.Defining Religion and SpiritualityRecent conceptualizations attempt to tie togetherrather than separate the meaning of religion andspirituality (see Hill & Pargament, 2003; Hill et al.,2000; Pargament, 1997, 1999; Zinnbauer et al.,1999). Pargament’s (1997) work, summarized in hisinsightful book, The Psychology of Religion andCoping, appears particularly influential in recentdefinitions of religion and spirituality. Pargament’sanalysis begins with a seemingly straightforwardquestion: What makes religion special? What is theessential quality that distinguishes religion fromother domains and concerns of life? Based on hisreview and synthesis of previous work, Pargamentconcluded that it is the unique substance and functionof religion that makes it special. Substantively,the defining essence of religion is the sacred. Thesacred refers to things set apart from ordinary lifebecause of their connection to God, the holy, thedivine; to transcendent forces, Ultimate Truths andUltimate Reality. The sacred evokes a sense of awe,respect, reverence, and veneration. It encompassesthe beliefs, practices, and feelings relating to ahigher being and ultimate truth of existence.In addition to its sacred substance, religion isalso distinguished by its distinctive function in people’slives. Religion is not just a set of beliefs and practices;it also involves how these beliefs are used toanswer life’s most profound questions and cope withlife’s most difficult challenges. Religion addresses existentialquestions concerning the meaning of life andits inevitable pain, tragedies, suffering, injustices, andthe finality of death. People’s religious beliefs exertpowerful influence on the ways in which they copewith these fundamental problems of existence andfind significance and meaning in life.Pargament attempts to combine substance andfunction in his definition of religion and spirituality.He defines religion as “a search for significance inways related to the sacred” (1997, p. 32), andspirituality as a “search for the sacred” (1997, p. 39).“Search” incorporates a functional view of religionand spirituality as a means to address life’s mostimportant questions. “Sacred” identifies the specialsubstance of this search that distinguishes religion andspirituality from other life domains. In this conception,religion is the broader concept because it includesboth sacred and secular purposes (Pargament, 1999;Pargament & Mahoney, 2002). The “search for significance”in a religious context (i.e., ways related tothe sacred) overlaps with secular routes and means.Religion serves a variety of purposes, not all of whichare sacred in nature. For example, many peoplefind caring, supportive relationships through theirchurches. They could also find such relationships inprivate clubs or community organizations. Churchrelationships are “related” to the sacred but not necessarilysacred themselves. “Significance” is meant toinclude the many individual variations in the meaningof this term, including those related to the four needsfor meaning described earlier. Through religion, peoplemight seek peace of mind, a sense of worth, selfcontrol,intimacy, caring relationships, life direction, orpersonal growth. Again, these forms of significancemay or may not be regarded as sacred.The unique and distinctive function ofreligion is defined by spirituality. The “sacred”connects the search for significance to the specialISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.226 Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of Characterunderstandings associated with a religious perspective.People are spiritual to the extent “. . . that theyare trying to find, know, experience, or relate towhat they perceive as sacred” (Pargament &Mahoney, 2002, p. 648). The immaterial world ofthe sacred stands in general contrast to the profaneworld of material objects and forces. However,profane objects may become sacred if theyare imbued with sacred meaning. Pargament callsthis transformation of meaning sanctification,which is described as “the perception of an objectas having spiritual significance and character”(Pargament & Mahoney, 2002, p. 649). Almost anyordinary object can take on sacred symbolic meaning.Food in the form of a wafer is a scared sacramentin many religious ceremonies. Water used inbaptism is regarded as Holy water when blessed bya priest. Many Americans consider the Americanflag to be a sacred symbol deserving reverence.Respect for the flag is embodied in laws thatpunish its destruction and desecration.When secular objects are imbued with sacredmeanings or when secular ends are pursued thoughsacred means, people are likely to be more respectful,protective, and caring. For example, a satisfyingmarriage is a goal for many people, whether or notthey are religious. However, married couples whothink of their marriage in religious or sacred termshave transformed their relationship into one withsacred significance. Interestingly, one study foundthat couples who thought of their marriage as sacredreported greater marital satisfaction, more constructiveproblem-solving, less conflict, and greater commitmentto the marriage, compared to couples whoascribed a lower degree of sacredness to their marriages(Mahoney et al., 1999).In Pargament’s conception, religion is not limitedto organized religions, and spirituality is notlimited to belief in God. There are multiple pathwaysin the search for the sacred. As Pargament andMahoney put it “. . . the sacred can be found on earthas well as in heaven” (2002, p. 649). The search forthe sacred would include such things as mediation;the transcendent beliefs that are part of theAlcoholics Anonymous Twelve-Step program; NativeAmerican Indians’ reverent and spiritual view of animalsand the environment; Scientology; and a varietyof other personal searches focused on the sacred.Spiritual practices devoted to the sacred are similarlydiverse. Among those mentioned by Pargament andMahoney (2002) are praying, engaging in traditionalreligious practices, reading the Bible, and watchingreligious television programs, listening to music,appreciating art, and engaging in social actions andeducational opportunities that are directed towardsacred goals.Pargament (1999) does not regard religionand spirituality as universally good. His definitionsallow for the many uses and abuses ofsacred means and ends, from the tyranny andoppression of faith-based governments to theschemes of some religious groups that con peopleout of their money through false promises anddevious means. The value of spirituality and religionclearly depend on their particular formand use. Like any other complex system of beliefsand practices, people can use them for bothconstructive and destructive purposes, and canexperience both negative and positive outcomes(see Exline, 2002).Religion/Spirituality and Well-BeingGiven the diversity of religions and forms of spirituality,it would be somewhat surprising to find a generalrelationship between religion/spirituality andwell-being. This is particularly true considering thatmost studies employ global measures of selfreportedreligiousness, such as frequency of churchattendance and religious affiliation. These globalassessments do not get at the specific aspects ofpeople’s religious orientation, depth of commitment,or the function of religion/spirituality in their lives.However, a number of major reviews by prominentresearchers have concluded that religion does havea small, but consistent positive relationship to measuresof health and well-being. On average, religiouspeople are found to be happier and more satisfiedwith life (Argyle, 2001; Diener & Clifton, 2002;Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999; Myers, 2000a,2000b; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Studies thatmeasure degrees of religious involvement, such as“closeness to God,” “spiritual strivings”, or “spiritualcommitment,” generally find that higher levels ofreligious commitment are related to higher levels oflife satisfaction (Argyle, 2001; Emmons, 1999b;Myers, 2000a). The positive connection of religionand happiness is somewhat stronger among the elderly.Interestingly, for children and adolescents, religiousinvolvement is associated with lessdelinquency, less alcohol and drug abuse, and alower incidence of early sexual activity.ISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of Character 227In their Handbook of Religion and Health,Koenig, McCullough, and Larson (2001) provide anextensive review of the relationship between religiousinvolvement and health outcomes. Mentalhealth outcomes included the presence or absence ofdepression, suicide, anxiety disorders, alcohol anddrug abuse, delinquency, and marital instability.Physical health outcomes included longevity and thepresence or absence of heart disease, hypertension,and cancer. Overall, the preponderance of evidencesupported positive benefits of religious involvement.The most consistent results are found for physicalhealth. Results for mental health have been somewhatmixed, and some studies have found isolatednegative effects. However, the mental healthevidence is generally positive, leading Koenig andcolleagues (2001) to conclude that “. . . for the vastmajority of people, the apparent benefits of devoutreligious belief and practices probably outweighthe risks” (p. 228) (see also Worthington, Kurusu,McCullough, & Sandage, 1996).Four major variables are typically used toassess religiousness/spirituality in research (George,Ellison, & Larson, 2002). These are: church attendanceand participation in religious activities (prayerand study groups), affiliation with a major religionand/or denomination (e.g., Protestant, Lutheran,Methodist, etc.), private religious practices such asprayer, meditation, and Bible reading, and the use ofreligion to cope with stressful and challenging lifeevents. In their review, George and her colleagues(2002) note that of these four variables, attendanceat religious services shows the strongest positivecorrelations with physical and mental health andwith longevity. People who attend church on a regularbasis (once a week or more) have been foundto enjoy better overall health, recover more quicklyfrom sickness, and live longer than less frequentchurch attendees. Studies that track the course of illnessover time find that religious coping is the mostpowerful predictor. That is, people who rely ontheir religious beliefs as a means of coping with illnessrecover more quickly, and are more likely tosurvive their illness, and to recover from major medicalprocedures (e.g., coronary bypass surgery).To be convincing, the religion–health connectionneeds to remain after other health prediction variablesare factored out or controlled (George et al., 2002;Koenig & Cohen, 2002; McCullough & Laurenceau,2005; Powell, Shahabi, & Thoresen, 2003). Potentialcompeting variables would include, age, sex, race,marital status, smoking, obesity, existing medicalconditions, social class, level of education, and stressfrom social circumstances (such as poverty). Recentstudies have found that a sizable effect of religiousnessstill remains after the effects of these variables havebeen statistically controlled. For example, a welldesignedlongitudinal study found a 23% lower deathrate among people who attended church once a weekor more (Strawbridge, Cohen, Shema, & Kaplan, 1997).This study examined the health histories of over 5,000adult community members for nearly three decades(28 years). The lower rate of mortality among frequentchurch attendees remained after the usual predictors ofsurvival (assessed at the beginning of the study) werefactored out. A number of other large-scale longitudinalstudies also affirm that the connection betweenfrequent church attendance and a longer and healthierlife remains, even after other health and longevitypredictors are controlled (see Koenig & Cohen, 2002;Koenig et al., 2001, for recent reviews).What might explain the health benefits of religion?Researchers have suggested a number of possiblemechanisms and pathways. The literatureevaluating the potential mediators of religion andhealth is in an early stage of development. The factorsdiscussed here must be viewed as potential,rather than well-established, empirically validatedexplanations. In their review, George and colleagues(2002) focused on improved health practices,increased social support, availability of psychosocialresources, and an enhanced sense of meaning in lifeas major mediating factors helping to explain thereligion–health relationship. Each of these will beexplored further in the sections that follow.HEALTH PRACTICES Some religions include clear prescriptionsfor good health. For example, the Mormonreligion explicitly prohibits smoking, drinking, andsex outside of marriage. Many other religions promotea sacred view of the body as “temple of thesoul.” This belief may encourage care and concernabout maintaining good physical and mental wellbeingby giving personal health a special and sacredsignificance. Support for the role of religion in goodhealth-care practices comes from studies showingthat, on average, regular church attendees smoke lessand are less likely to abuse alcohol and other drugs.SOCIAL SUPPORT The caring and supportive relationshipsthat develop through church membershipISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.228 Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of Charactermay be one of the most significant sources of healthbenefits. Religion and church attendance can providea stable and long-term basis for strong supportfrom others who share the same spiritual commitment.Religious support might provide a number ofbenefits, such as practical help in time of need, anenduring source of comfort, and a buffer against theeffects of stress in times of crisis. Hill and Pargament(2003) note that social support might be enhancedby its religious basis. We may take special comfort inknowing that people are praying for us, or from abelief that God is working through others on ourbehalf.PSYCHOSOCIAL RESOURCES AND MEANINGReligious/spiritual beliefs can provide a basis for atranscendent sense of personal worth, efficacy, mastery,and purpose in life. People with strong spiritualstrivings report higher levels of satisfaction, a greatersense of purpose in life, and higher levels of wellbeing(e.g., Emmons, Cheung, & Tehrani, 1998).Studies have linked religious affiliation to optimismand hope (Koenig & Cohen, 2002). Positive emotionssuch as joy are frequently associated with attendanceat church and other religious activities (Argyle,2001). Taken together, and in light of Fredrickson’sbroaden-and-build theory of positive emotions(Chapter 3) and the role of positive attitudes in copingand health (Chapter 9), these findings suggestthat religious beliefs may provide an importantsource of personal strength that promotes health andenhances people’s coping resources. In addition, aswe noted earlier, religion/spirituality offers a uniqueand special source of meaning concerning the ultimatequestions of human existence. A sacred understandingof life and death may be a particularlypowerful source of strength and meaning when confrontinga life-threatening event or illness.Religious OrientationReligious involvement generally seems to have positivebenefits. However, this conclusion requires severalqualifications. First, the study of religion hasbeen largely limited to North American samples thatare dominated by Protestants and Catholics and theirvarious denominations. There are few empirical studiesof Middle Eastern (e.g., Muslim, Hindu) or FarEastern religions (e.g., Shintoism, Buddhism). Further,people of Jewish faith in the United States havereceived little research attention. Whether currentfindings apply to all, most, or only some religious traditionsis still an open question. Secondly, the “average”benefits of religion are not the whole story. Abalanced presentation must also point out the potentialmisuses of religion and the possibilities for negativeoutcomes (see Exline, 2002). Throughout historyand the contemporary world, all manner of mayhemand atrocities have been committed in the name ofreligion and with “God on our side.” Scholars maynever sort out the paradoxes of religion. For psychologists,Peterson (2006) probably summed up theprevalent sentiment when he commented that distinguishingbetween “good” and “bad” religion is“. . . dangerous territory into which I care not toenter” (p. 291). However, at the individual level, psychologistshave encountered puzzling and contradictoryeffects of religion in their empirical studies. In anattempt to account for these varied outcomes,researchers have focused on differences in people’sorientation toward their religion.INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC RELIGIOUS ORIENTATIONGordon Allport was an early psychologist whoinvestigated the puzzling relationships between religionand prejudicial attitudes. In his classic book,The Nature of Prejudice, Allport concluded that “Therole of religion is paradoxical. It makes prejudiceand it unmakes prejudice. While the creeds of thegreat religions are universalistic, all stressing brotherhood,the practice of these creeds is frequentlydivisive and brutal” (1958, p. 413). That is, most religionspreach tolerance and compassion toward others,but these teachings do not necessarily affect theprejudices of religious followers. The empirical basisfor this paradox involves attitude surveys showingthat churchgoers tend to be more prejudiced againstvarious groups (e.g., African Americans, Jews) thanpeople who do not attend church. Major reviews ofattitude studies affirm the positive correlationbetween church attendance and prejudiced attitudes(e.g., Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, 1993; Wulf,1997). Allport noted that if religion itself was thecause of prejudice, then the most religious peopleshould be the most prejudiced (Allport & Ross,1967). However, he pointed out that available studiesdid not support this conclusion. Many studiessuggested that people who attended church frequentlywere less prejudiced than infrequent attendees.If we take frequency of church attendance as aISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of Character 229measure of religious commitment and exposure toreligious influence, then the most religious appearto be the least prejudiced among those with religiousaffiliations. Since Allport’s original work, thislatter point has become a source of controversyamong researchers (see Chapter 14 in Spilka et al.,2003).To unravel the religion–prejudice relationship,Allport distinguished between an intrinsic andextrinsic religious orientation. This distinction has todo with the differing means, ends, and functions ofpeople’s individual religious beliefs and practices.The extrinsic orientation describes people who“use” their religion for non-religious purposes, suchas to engage in a congenial social activity or tomaintain a favorable social status in the community.The intrinsic orientation describes those who “live”their religion and embrace its fundamental teachings.Allport and Ross (1967) developed a scale tomeasure these two orientations and reported that, asa group, extrinsically oriented people were significantlymore prejudiced than people with an intrinsicorientation. In the concluding discussion of theirstudy, Allport and Ross (1967) summarized theintrinsic–extrinsic difference and how it explains theapparent paradox of religion and prejudice, asquoted below.Extrinsic Religious Orientation.“. . . A person with an extrinsic religiousorientation is using his religious views toprovide security, comfort, status, orsocial support for himself—religion isnot a value in its own right, it servesother needs, and is a purely utilitarianformation. Now prejudice too is a ‘useful’formation; it too provides security,comfort, status, and social support. A lifedependent on the supports of extrinsicreligion is likely to be dependent on thesupports of prejudice, hence our positivecorrelations between the extrinsicorientation and intolerance” (Allport &Ross, 1967, p. 441).Intrinsic Religious Orientation.Continuing to quote Allport and Ross,“Contrariwise, the intrinsic religious orientationis not an instrumental device. Itis not a mere mode of conformity, nor acrutch, nor a tranquilizer, nor a bid forstatus. All needs are subordinated to anoverarching religious commitment. Ininternalizing the total creed of his religionthe individual necessarily internalizesits values of humility, compassion,and love of neighbor. In such a life(where religion is an intrinsic and dominantvalue) there is no place for rejection,contempt or condescension towardone’s fellow man” (Allport & Ross, 1967,p. 441).Originally focused on prejudice, the intrinsic–extrinsic orientation measure has become one ofthe most frequently used assessments of religiousness.Several revised versions of the original scalehave been developed (e.g., Gorsuch & McPherson,1989; Hoge, 1972). Research suggests that people’sreligious orientation is an important variable in therelationship between religion and well-being,particularly regarding mental health (see Batsonet al., 1993; Worthington et al., 1996, for examples).Whether religiousness enhances or has noeffect on mental health and other well-beingvariables (such as quality of family life, drugabuse, and self-esteem) seems to depend in parton the intrinsic–extrinsic orientation. A higherintrinsic orientation is generally associated withpositive outcomes. For example, a recent studyfound a positive association between intrinsic religiousnessand life satisfaction, but no associationbetween extrinsic religiousness and satisfaction(Salsman, Brown, Brechting, & Carlson, 2005).Higher degrees of optimism and social supportamong intrinsically religious people partiallyaccounted for the enhanced life satisfaction.People with an intrinsic religious orientation weremore optimistic in outlook and enjoyed greatersocial support from others, compared to peoplewith a more extrinsic orientation.Quest Religious Orientation. Though widelyaccepted, Allport’s original conception and measureof intrinsic–extrinsic religious orientations isnot without its critics (see Pargament, 1997, for adetailed review; Spilka et al., 2003, Chapter 14).Regarding religion and prejudice, subsequentresearchers noted that an intrinsic orientation isonly related to decreased prejudice if a person’sreligious beliefs and community condemn prejudicetoward certain groups (e.g., gays andISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.230 Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of Characterlesbians). If prejudice is not prohibited, or if prejudiceis given religious sanction, the intrinsic orientationis associated with increased, rather thandecreased prejudice (e.g., Herek, 1987). Batsonand his colleagues have addressed this issue bydeveloping a third dimension of religious orientationthey call “quest religious orientation” (Batsonet al., 1993), and they constructed a 12-item scaleto measure this orientation. A quest religious orientationrefers to a complex, flexible, and tentativeview of religion and spirituality. Moreemphasis is placed on the search for religioustruths than on obtaining or accepting clear-cutanswers. People with a quest orientation appreciateand are willing to confront and struggle tounderstand the complexities of religion and theworld. They are skeptical and doubtful about simpleor “final” answers to life’s biggest questions. Astrong quest religious orientation has consistentlybeen associated with lower levels of prejudice anda high degree of sensitivity to the needs of othersthat promotes helping those in need (Batson et al.,1993). Other studies suggest that people who haveboth a flexible orientation toward their religion(high quest orientation) and strong religious commitment(high intrinsic orientation) have betterphysical health and adjustment to negative lifeevents (McIntosh & Spilka, 1990).Attachment Theory and Relationshipto GodPeople’s relationship to God, the divine, the spiritual,and the transcendent is highly personal. Thisrelationship may take a variety of forms such asfeeling “God’s presence and love,” the “wrath ofGod or of nature,” a sense of awe and wonder, reverenceand respect, security and comfort, inspiration,fear, guilt, and anxiety. Kirkpatrick (1992)noted these different images of God and the divineare quite similar to different images people have oftheir parents. Within developmental psychology,attachment theory has described the nature ofthe attachment between parent and child as animportant index of a healthy family and a foundationfor later development. Kirkpatrick proposedthat it might be informative to view God as anattachment figure. He did not mean to reduce Godto the “father figure” described in the Freudianconceptualization of religion. Religion offers aunique and sacred foundation for life, well beyondthe protection and comfort suggested by aFreudian view of God as a symbolic, benevolentfather. But, like a secure and loving attachment toparents, a secure relationship with God may alsofunction as a foundation for exploring life and itsmany challenges. Pargament described it this way:“Armed with the knowledge that protection canalways be found in God’s loving arms, the religiousindividual may feel greater confidence venturingout in the world, searching for other forms of significance”(Pargament, 1997, p. 355).An attachment perspective suggests that aperson’s relationship with the divine might showsome correspondence with parental attachment. Asecure relationship with parents might set thestage for a secure, positive relationship withGod. In a similar vein, insecure and conflictedrelationships with parents might lead to either acompensating secure attachment to God or to arelationship to the divine that is also insecure andconflicted. Studies support a significant connectionbetween childhood parental attachments andadult religious attachments (e.g., Birgegard &Granqvist, 2004; Granqvist, 2002; Kirkpatrick &Shaver, 1990). Studies also show that people’sself-identified attachment style is related to measuresof well-being. Kirkpatrick and Shaver asked asample of community adults to select which ofthree attachment styles best described their ownrelationship to God. The three styles weredescribed as quoted below (with labels removedfor study participants).Secure Attachment. “God is generally warm andresponsive to me. He always seems to know whento be supportive and protective of me, and when tolet me make my own mistakes. My relationship withGod is always comfortable, and I am very happyand satisfied with it” (Kirkpatrick & Shaver, 1992,p. 270).Avoidant Attachment. “God is generally impersonal,distant, and often seems to have little or nointerest in my personal affairs and problems. I frequentlyhave the feeling that He doesn’t care verymuch about me, or that He might not like me”(Kirkpatrick & Shaver, 1992, p. 270).Anxious/Ambivalent Attachment. “God seems tobe inconsistent in His reactions to me. He sometimesseems warm and responsive to my needs, butsometimes not. I’m sure that He loves me and caresISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of Character 231about me, but sometimes He seems to show it inways I don’t really understand” (Kirkpatrick &Shaver, 1992, p. 270).Compared to people with a secure religiousattachment, the two insecure attachment styles(avoidant and anxious/ambivalent) showed lowerself-reported life satisfaction and physical health,and higher levels of anxiety, feelings of loneliness,and depression. The attachment-based measure ofreligiousness was also found to be a better predictorof well-being and mental health than severalmeasures of religiousness commonly used inresearch.Styles of Religious CopingOur beginning discussion of religion and spiritualitynoted the importance of finding meaning in life,particularly when confronting challenges suchas serious illness and death. An old adage hasit that there are “no atheists in foxholes,” meaningthat almost everyone becomes religious and hopesthat God will save them when confronting his orher own death. While there probably are some atheistsin foxholes, the saying captures the importanceof spirituality and religion in times of crisis. Becausereligion addresses life’s essential meaning, religiousbeliefs provide a potentially powerful means ofcoping with life’s existential struggles. Like otheraspects of people’s religious beliefs and orientations,people differ in the particular style of theirreligious coping. And just as certain religious orientationsare more beneficial than others, styles ofcoping differ in producing positive or negative outcomes.Kenneth Pargament (1997) has probablydone more than any other psychologist to describeand evaluate the various ways in which people usetheir religious beliefs as coping resources. He notesthat religious coping is clearly tied to the depth ofpeople’s religious commitment. When religion is asignificant part of people’s overall orientationtoward life, religion becomes an important means ofcoping.In their initial work, Pargament and his colleaguesidentified three distinct styles of religiouscoping and problem-solving (Pargament, 1997;Pargament et al., 1988). The independence ofeach style, the internal coherence of the styles, andscales to measure each style were validated in anadult sample of Presbyterian and Lutheran churchmembers.Definitions and sample scale items are givenbelow (from Pargament, 1997, pp. 180–182).Self-Directing Style. In this approach, people relyon themselves rather than God to solve their problems.People maintain their church affiliation, but score lowon measures of religiousness. “When thinking about adifficulty, I try to come up with possible solutionswithout God’s help.” “After I’ve gone through a roughtime, I try to make sense of it without relying on God.”The self-directing style was associated with a heightenedsense of personal control in life, higher selfesteem,and a religious quest orientation.Deferring Style. The deferring style refers to peoplewho put their problems and responsibility forsolutions in God’s hands. “Rather than trying to comeup with the right solution to a problem myself, I letGod decide how to deal with it.” “When a troublesomeissue arises, I leave it up to God to decide whatit means to me.” This coping style was connected tomore religious orthodoxy (deference to the authorityof church & religion) and an extrinsic religious orientation.Of the three styles, this deferring approach wasrelated to the lowest levels of personal competence,self-esteem, and effective problem-solving. The strongreliance on an external source of coping may contributeto feelings of helplessness and passivity.Collaborative Style. In this style, God and theindividual are active partners in the problem-solvingprocess. “When it comes to deciding how to solve aproblem, God and I work together as partners.”“When I have a problem, I talk to God about it andtogether we decide what it means.” A collaborativestyle was associated with a strong intrinsic religiousorientation and commitment to religious beliefs andpractice. The collaborative approach to problemsolvingshowed positive correlations with personalcontrol, competency, and self-esteem.Pargament and his colleagues have subsequentlydeveloped a more comprehensive measureof religious coping that captures the diverse ways inwhich people use religion in times of stress andchallenge (Pargament, 1997; Pargament, Smith,Koenig, & Perez, 1998; Pargament et al., 2001). Inthe development and validation of an expanded religiouscoping scale (RCOPE), Pargament and colleagues(1998, 2001) found that coping styles couldbe classified as positive or negative based on theirrelationship to well-being outcomes. Positive copingstrategies reflected a secure relationship withISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.232 Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of CharacterGod and a belief that deeper meanings can befound in life (including tragedies) and in spiritualconnections with others. Positive coping methodsincluded benevolent religious appraisals (e.g.,redefining a stressful situation as beneficial for spiritualgrowth), collaborative religious coping, seekingspiritual support through God’s love and care, seekinghelp from clergy or fellow church members, andspiritual purification (asking God’s forgiveness andblessing). Negative religious coping reflected aless secure relationship with God and a more uncertainand threatening view of the world. Negativecoping methods included negative and punitive religiousappraisals (e.g., tragic events as God’s punishmentfor sin or the work of the devil), reappraisalsof God’s powers (doubt about God’s ability to help),spiritual discontent (confusion and dissatisfactionwith God), interpersonal religious discontent (dissatisfactionwith clergy or church), and deferring religiouscoping (passively waiting for God’s solution tothe problem).The influences of positive and negative religiouscoping on well-being outcomes have beenexamined in diverse samples: community membersdealing with the Oklahoma City bombing; collegestudents dealing with life stresses (such as the deathof loved one or a failed romance); people hospitalizedfor medical illness; older individuals copingwith serous illness; and members of the clergy(Pargament et al., 1988, 1998, 2001). Despite thediversity of the crises in which participants wereinvolved, results showed a consistent pattern ofgood outcomes related to positive coping styles andneutral to poor outcomes for negative coping styles.The majority of participants reported using positivereligious coping methods. Positive religious copingwas generally related to higher levels of well-being,more religious growth, less distress, and better mentalhealth. Negative religious coping was correlatedwith lower levels of well-being and more emotionaldistress and depression.One of Pargament and his colleagues’ studies(2001) compared clergy members, church elders,and rank-and-file church members affiliated with thePresbyterian Church. Interestingly, the impact ofpositive and negative coping was strongest for theclergy members. They enjoyed the greatest benefitsof positive coping, but also suffered more deleteriouseffects of negative coping. The overwhelmingmajority of clergy members relied primarily on positivecoping methods. However, they also tended touse more negative coping than the other two groupsin the study. The relationship between negative copingand depression was particularly strong amongclergy members, compared to church elders andchurch members. Why would this be the case?Pargament and colleagues (2001) suggest that negativecoping may reflect a kind of religious struggle,in which crises may challenge aspects of an individual’sreligious beliefs. Clergy members’ personal andprofessional identities as “men and women of God”are inextricably tied to their religious convictions.Doubt about these convictions might be expected tocause more turmoil for clergy members than forpeople whose commitments are not so deep andwhose lives and identities are not so invested inreligion. For the clergy members, “. . . thosewho encounter spiritual struggles in times of difficulty(e.g., feeling that God has abandonedthem, anger at God, religious doubts) may find thecoping process particularly devastating. Religiousprofessionals and leaders might well experiencesuch painful struggles to be fundamentally incompatiblewith their training and career and thus,threatening to core aspects of their personal identity”(Pargament et al., 2001, p. 510).“Explaining Religion versus ExplainingReligion Away”The heading of this section is taken fromPargament’s insightful article titled, “Is ReligionNothing But . . . .? Explaining Religion versusExplaining Religion Away” (Pargament, 2002). Thepoint of the title is to ask whether there is anythingspecial or unique about religion and spirituality thatcannot be accounted for by psychological, social,and biological explanations. For example, if weremove the effects of social support, finding meaningand purpose in life, increased self-esteem andcompetence, and the benefits of positive attitude onimmune-system functioning from the health benefitsof religion, is there anything left over that resultsfrom spirituality alone? The answer to this questionis perhaps one dividing line between spiritual andnon-spiritual people, or between those who believereligion is “nothing but” and those who believe religionis a unique dimension of human life.Psychologists’ answer to this question hasimportant implications for how religion is studied. Ifthe effects of religion are entirely mediated by otherfactors, such as social support, then only these otherISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of Character 233factors need to be studied. However, if the sacreddimension of life makes an independent contribution,psychologists will need to give religion moreserious and thoughtful attention. As we noted, studiesthat control for known health-enhancing andhealth-detracting factors have found that the benefitsof religion and spirituality are reduced, but noteliminated. Such findings are suggestive of the distinctiveeffects of spirituality. At this point is probablybest to conclude, with Pargament, that the “juryis still out” on this question.RELIGION AND VIRTUEThe Values in Action Project (Peterson & Seligman,2004) discussed earlier in this chapter drew heavilyon the moral principles embodied in the major religionsof the world. While one can certainly be virtuouswithout being religious, religion has providedan important foundation for thinking about morality,virtue, and the difference between “right” and“wrong” conduct in human affairs. Empirical investigationsof the relationship between religion andvirtue are in the beginning stages of development.Survey researchers do find that religion is related tomore traditionally conservative moral attitudestoward contemporary issues. Spilka and colleagues(2003) review studies showing that, on average, themore religious people are, the more likely they areto oppose pornography, divorce as a solution tomarital unhappiness, homosexuality and AIDS education,premarital sex, feminism, and rap music.Religious people are also more likely to approve ofmore severe sentences for criminal offenders, supportcensorship of sexual and violent programmingin the mass media, and to be more politically conservative.Obviously, the problem with these “onaverage” findings is that many religious individualshold quite liberal political and moral outlooks.Based on their religious beliefs, many people opposethe death penalty, seek more compassion for criminaloffenders, and support sex education and AIDSeducation. In their research review, Peterson andSeligman (2004) cite studies supporting a number ofpositive associations between religion and virtuousbehaviors such as healthy relationships, forgiveness,kindness, compassion, altruism, and volunteering incommunity service activities. However, they alsonote that the general relationship between religiousbeliefs and virtue is complicated by individual diversityin the religion–morality connection and howindividual researchers measure religiousness. As wesaw in our earlier discussion, the effects of religionand spirituality depend heavily on the particular,individualized form of people’s religious beliefs andtheir level of religious commitment.That said, research has begun to explore theconnection between virtue and religion and toexamine how virtue functions in individual andsocial life, whether or not it has a religious basis.Forgiveness and gratitude are among the most heavilyresearched virtues in recent research. Both figureprominently in world religions as essential componentsof a religious life. Seeking God’s forgivenessfor sin and giving thanks for God’s love, grace, andblessing are common elements of many religioustraditions and teachings.ForgivenessMost researchers see the value of forgiveness in termsof its potential ability to offset the debilitating effectsof the anger and hostility associated with a desire toavenge the hurtful act of another (Fincham &Kashdan, 2004; McCullough, Pargament, & Thoresen,2000; McCullough & Witvliet, 2002; Worthington,1998). Being insulted, betrayed, taken advantageof, or wronged by others are inevitable, painfulaspects of the human experience. The anger andresentment created by interpersonal transgressionscan destroy relationships and suspend us in obsessiverumination over the offense. For example, considerableresearch suggests that bad marriagesare typified by needs to “get even,” leading to an endlesscycle of reciprocating negative comments andactions (Gottman, 1994, 1998; Reis & Gable, 2003).Forgiveness has the potential to repair relationshipsand undo the negative emotions related to revengeand resentment.Although there is no consensual definition of forgiveness,several reviews point to core features sharedamong the major conceptualizations (Fincham &Kashdan, 2004; McCullough et al., 2000; McCullough &Witvliet, 2002; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Finchamand Kashdan argue that “at the center of variousapproaches to forgiveness is the idea of a freely chosenmotivational transformation in which the desire toseek revenge and to avoid contact with the transgressoris lessened, a process sometimes described as an‘altruistic gift’ ” (p. 618). Most researchers also agreethat forgiveness is distinct from related concepts suchas excusing (concluding that the hurt was not theISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.234 Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of Charactertransgressor’s fault or intention), condoning (reframingthe act as not really being an offense), denial (not confrontingthe offense), and forgetting (allowing memoryof the offense to fade) (Enright & Coyle, 1998).Reconciliation is also viewed as different than forgivenessbecause it involves a mutual effort to restore arelationship by both the offender and the offended(McCullough & Witvliet, 2002).Researchers disagree about whether forgivenessrequires positive feelings and actions towardthe transgressor (e.g., increased kindness, compassion,making contact), or whether the absence ofnegative responses is sufficient (e.g., decreasedrevenge, hostility, and avoidance). Research suggeststhat the positive and negative responses may beindependent dimensions of forgiveness that lead todifferent outcomes, and that these outcomes may berelated to stages of forgiveness. For example, Enrightand his colleagues (1998) view forgiveness as adevelopmental process involving stages or degreesof forgiveness that can be evaluated according totheir degree of genuineness. An act of forgivenessmay be heartfelt or disingenuous. Genuine forgivenessrequires compassion, benevolence, and love forthe offender, together with a relinquishment of theright to revenge, resentment, and indifference.A final definitional complication concerns thedifference between laypersons’ and psychologists’understandings of forgiveness. While laypersons’understanding of forgiveness overlaps considerablywith psychologists’ conceptions, there are also importantdifferences (Kantz, 2000; Kearns & Fincham,2004). Recall that psychologists express the opinionthat forgiving someone does not mean the same thingas simply excusing, condoning, denying, forgetting,or reconciling the hurt. Kearns and Fincham (2004)found that, contrary to psychologists’ definitions, 28%of laypeople believed forgetting about the offensewas an important attribute of forgiveness and 28%thought reconciliation was a significant potentialoutcome of forgiveness.The burgeoning research literature presents acomplicated picture of the outcomes of forgiveness.This is partly because researchers define and measureforgiveness in different ways (Thompson & Snyder,2003). Some reviews suggest that forgiveness generallyleads to small, but consistent positive outcomesin health and well-being (e.g., McCullough & Witvliet,2002), while others argue that such conclusionsare premature (e.g., Fincham & Kashdan, 2004).All researchers recognize the tentative nature ofconclusions in this new area of research and the needto understand the many factors mediating the effectsof forgiveness. For example, the reasons why peopleforgive are important to the effects of forgiveness. Inone study, people who forgave out of a sense of obligationrather than love showed no decrease in angerand related physiological responses such as bloodpressure (Huang & Enright, 2000). Here, we willreview studies that exemplify the potential of forgivenessto reduce the deleterious effects of hostilitycaused by a personal offense.Anger and hostility are strongly implicated incardiovascular disease (Friedman & Rosenman,1974). Evidence that forgiveness might be an antidotefor the negative effects of hostility is shown ina recent study by Witvliet, Ludwig, and Vander Laan(2001). In this study, a variety of physiologicalmeasures were taken as college undergraduatesimagined forgiving and unforgiving responses to areal-life offense. In the forgiveness imaginationexercise, students were asked to empathize withthe humanity of the offender and grant forgiveness.In the unforgiveness condition, they mentallyrehearsed the hurt of the offense and nursed theirgrudge against the offender. Students in the unforgivenesscondition showed significantly more cardiovascularreactions (heart rate & blood pressureincreases), exhibited more sympathetic nervoussystem arousal (skin conductance), and reportedmore negative emotions (e.g., anger, sadness) thanstudents in the forgiveness imagination condition.In contrast, the forgiveness imagination exerciseproduced lower physiological reactivity, more positiveemotions, and greater feelings of control.Although only a short-term study, these resultsaffirm the potential health benefits of forgiveness.Forgiveness seems particularly important as apossible repair mechanism for the inevitable conflictthat occurs in relationships. As we have notedmany times, caring relations with others are one ofthe more significant factors in our health and happiness.Studies support the contribution of forgivenessto marital quality and the connection betweenforgiveness and other relationship factors, suchas higher overall relationship satisfaction, greaterempathy for one’s partner, stronger commitment tothe relationship, and less rumination about pastoffenses and about whether the offending partnerapologized (Fincham & Beach, 2004; Fincham,Beach, & Davila, 2004; Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, &Hannon, 2002; McCullough & Worthington, 1997;ISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of Character 235McCullough et al., 2000; Paleari, Regalia, & Fincham,2005). Forgiveness seems to both express andenhance close, caring, and healthy relationships. Let’sexplore this reciprocal influence a bit further:Forgiveness as an expression of marital quality hasbeen demonstrated in studies showing specific variablesthat predict people will forgive one another.Specifically, strong commitment to the relationship,high levels of satisfaction and closeness, high levelsof emotional empathy for the offending partner, andlow levels of rumination about the offense by theoffended partner are all variables that predict that aperson will forgive a loved one for a serious transgression.On the flip side, the positive effects offorgiveness are shown in the form of enhanced maritalquality, increased likelihood of future forgiveness,and the observation that forgiveness contributes to therestoration of closeness after a transgression occurs(e.g., McCullough et al., 1998; Paleari et al., 2005).GratitudeLike forgiveness, gratitude is deeply embedded inmost religious traditions, but defies easy definition.Gratitude is widely regarded as a virtue and ingratitudeas a vice (Bono, Emmons, & McCullough,2004). Studies show that feelings of gratitude areamong the more commonly experienced positiveemotions, making us feel happy, contended, andjoyful (Bono et al., 2004; Emmons & McCullough,2004). Expressions of gratitude can range from apolite and obligatory “thank you” in everyday life toan appreciation and thankfulness for life itself. Aprominent feature of gratefulness is an appreciationfor the enhanced well-being that derives fromanother source (e.g., a person, God, or nature).Feelings and expressions of gratitude would seemparticularly strong when the benefit received wasfreely given and when the benefactor incurred somecost and sacrifice (Emmons & Shelton, 2002).McCullough, Kilpatrick, Emmons, and Larson(2001) provided one of the first conceptualizationsof gratitude. These researchers define gratitude asmoral affect because both the origins and consequencesof gratitude are oriented toward the wellbeingof another person. That is, gratitude arisesfrom virtue and concern with doing the right thing.It is also a prosocial act that sustains and reinforcesthe practice of virtue because of the positive consequencesfor both the benefactor and the beneficiary.Gratitude is distinct from other moral emotions, likeshame and guilt, because these emotions mean wehave fallen short of our moral standards and committedsome transgression against another. In contrast,gratitude derives from being the recipient ofhelpful acts from another.McCullough and his colleagues believe gratitudeserves three moral or social functions: Gratitude canfunction as a moral barometer, a moral motive, and amoral reinforcer. As a moral barometer, gratitude signalsa change in one’s social relationships, as both therecipient (the person who received the kind act) andthe benefactor (the person who offered the kind act)acknowledge their roles in each other’s well-being.Positive feelings are the barometer or index of thischange. As a moral motive, gratitude may serve toenergize gratefulness among recipients of kind acts, ina reciprocating, “treat-kindness-with-kindness” mindset.Recipients of a particular kind act may also startthinking of other kind things done for them by otherpeople, which may motivate them to express gratitudeto those benefactors. As a moral reinforcer, gratitudemay fuel the benefactor’s desire to continue helpingothers in the future. In other words, receiving heartfeltthanks from someone creates positive emotions, andthereby serves as powerful reinforcement, leading toincreased likelihood of future helpful acts. An evaluationof empirical evidence relevant to the three functionsof gratitude found moderate support for gratitudeas a moral barometer, weak support for the moralmotive function, and very strong support for gratitudeas a moral reinforcer (Bono et al., 2004; Emmons &McCullough, 2004; McCullough et al., 2001).Focus on Research: IncreasingWell-Being by Counting Your BlessingsSince gratitude is associated with positive feelings,could well-being be enhanced by asking people tothink about and keep track of their blessings? Thiswas the question examined by Emmons andMcCullough (2003) in three separate studies. In theirfirst study, college students were assigned to one ofthree conditions.In the grateful condition, students were giventhe following instructions: “There are many things inour lives, both large and small, that we might be gratefulabout. Think back over the last week and writedown on the lines below up to five things in your lifethat you are grateful or thankful for” (Emmons &McCullough, 2003, p. 379). In this condition, studentsmentioned such things as the helpfulness of friends,ISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.236 Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of Characterhaving great parents, and thankfulness to God for hishelp in their life.In the hassles condition, the following instructionswere given: “Hassles are irritants—things thatannoy or bother you. They occur in various domainsof life, including relationships, work, school, housing,finances, health, and so forth. Think back overtoday and, on the lines below, list up to five hasslesthat occurred in your life” (Emmons & McCullough,2003, p. 379). Hassles mentioned by the student participantsincluded things like dwindling finances forschool, a messy kitchen that no one would clean,poor test performance in a college class, and lack ofappreciation from friends.Instructions for the events condition were asfollows: “What were some of the events or circumstancesthat affected you in the past week? Thinkback over the past week and write down on thelines below five events that had an impact on you”(Emmons & McCullough, 2003, p. 379). Events mentionedincluded attending a festival, learning a newskill, taking a trip and cleaning up one’s place ofresidence.Students also completed well-being measuresthat included ratings of mood, overall well-being,physical health symptoms, and the experience of 30different positive and negative emotions. Students ineach condition (grateful, hassles, or events) completedall measures once each week over a periodof 10 weeks. In a second study, students were againassigned to either a grateful condition or a hasslescondition, but a downward comparison conditionwas substituted for the events condition. For downwardcomparisons, participants were asked to thinkof ways in which they were better off than others. Inthis second study, students recorded their responsesdaily, over a 2-week period.Compared to students in the hassles and eventsconditions, students in the grateful conditionappeared to reap a number of well-being benefits.They reported being more grateful; said they feltbetter about life in general; experienced more positiveemotions; reported fewer negative emotions;and were more optimistic about the future. In the10-week study, students also reported fewer healthproblems and increases in both the amount andquality of sleep experienced. Perhaps because of itsshort duration, health benefits were not found in the2-week daily diary study.In a third study, adult participants withneuromuscular diseases were recruited througha university neuromuscular disease clinic.Participants kept daily diaries for 21 days andwere assigned to either a grateful condition (as inprevious studies) or a “no-manipulation” conditionin which only the well-being measures werecompleted. Reports from spouses or significantothers were also gathered to help validate theself-reports of participants. Results showed that,compared to the no-manipulation group, participantsassigned to the grateful condition reportedhigher overall subjective well-being, more optimisticviews of the future, more frequent positiveemotions, a reduction in negative emotions, moresleep, sleep of improved quality, and a strongersense of connection to others. These changeswere corroborated by the reports of others whosaw improved well-being among participants inthe grateful condition, as compared to participantsin the no-manipulation condition.In their conclusion, Emmons and McCulloughsuggest that, because grateful expressions increasepositive emotions, gratitude might be an importantcontributor to the upward spiral of well-beingdescribed in Fredrickson’s broaden-and-build theoryof positive emotions (see Chapter 2). That is, gratitudehas the potential to promote positive emotions,repair relationships, and offset the toxic effects ofrevengeful hostility. These effects are consistentwith Fredrickson’s idea that positive emotions buildpsychological and social resources for healthy andadaptive functioning.We began this chapter by describing themonumental effort to develop a classification systemof human virtues and strengths of character(the “Values in Action” Project). The purpose ofthis effort was to provide a language for describingthe “good,” in human behavior and what goesright in people’s lives, in order to balance psychology’slong-standing focus on the “bad” and whatgoes wrong. The Diagnostic and StatisticalManual of Mental Disorders catalogues the manymental and emotional problems that plaguehuman beings. Mental health professionals havedeveloped a variety of therapies to treat mentaldisorders. In many ways, the VIA project is ananalogous effort, but one that is focused on wellbeingand happiness. The VIA project aimsto delineate the positive behaviors that underliewell-being and happiness. In this regard, practicingforgiveness and gratitude are examples ofinterventions analogous to psychotherapy, butintended to promote a life on the positive side ofzero, rather than to treat illness.ISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of Character 237Chapter Summary Questions1. Why have psychologists tended to avoid thestudy of morality and virtue?2. How did the Values in Action Project researchersdevelop and select their list of 6 virtues and 24character strengths?3. What is the difference between wisdom and“book learning,” intelligence, technical knowledge,or being “smart?” What does it mean to bewise?4. What three interests are wise people skillful at balancing,according to Sternberg’s balance theory?5. What do Baltes and his colleagues mean whenthey describe wisdom as expert knowledge ofthe “fundamental pragmatics of life?”6. How does wisdom relate to happiness, accordingto research by Baltes and his colleagues? Arewise people happier?7. What role does wisdom play in the SOC modelof effective life management, according to Baltesand his colleagues?8. What are the arguments supporting self-controlas a master virtue? How is failed self-control evidentin the “Seven Deadly Sins,” according toBaumeister and Exline?9. How may religion fulfill the four needs (describedby Baumeister) that underlie a meaningful life(purpose, value, self-efficacy, and self-worth)?10. What does it mean when someone describesthemselves as “spiritual, but not religious?”What has research shown about the percentageof people who make and identify with thisdistinction?11. How does Pargament define religion and spirituality?What is the defining feature of each; andwhy is religion considered the broader concept?12. What general conclusions are drawn fromresearch investigating the relationship betweenreligion and well-being? Of the four measuresused to measure religiousness, which is thestrongest predictor of well-being?13. How may the relationship between health andreligion be explained (3 factors)?14. According to the classic work of Gordon Allport,how does the distinction between intrinsic andextrinsic religious orientation help solve the religious-prejudice puzzle?15. How may an attachment to God serve a functionsimilar to attachment to parents?16. a. What is the difference between positive andnegative coping styles, according to Pargamentand his colleagues?b. What “religious struggle” might cause clergymembers to use more negative coping stylesthan rank-and-file church members, accordingto Pargament and his colleagues?17. What is the difference between “explaining religionversus explaining religion away,” accordingto Pargament?18. Why do researchers believe forgiveness mayrelease people from the damaging effects of negativeemotions like anger and revenge and also helprepair and enhance relationships? What does preliminaryresearch suggest about these possibilities?19. a. How may gratitude function as a moral barometer,a moral motive, and a moral reinforcer,according to McCullough and his colleagues?b. What positive outcomes were associated withgratitude among college students and adultssuffering from neuromuscular diseases in therecent study by Emmons and McCullough?Key Termsvalues in action project 208wisdom 209courage 209humanity 211justice 211temperance 211transcendence 211balance theory 215wisdom as expertknowledge 216SOC Model: selection,optimization, andcompensation 218purpose 221value 221self-efficacy 221interpretive control 222self-worth 222religion (Pargament) 225spirituality (Pargament) 225sanctification 226intrinsic versus extrinsic religiousorientation 228quest religious orientation 230attachment theory 230positive coping styles 231negative coping styles 232forgiveness 233gratitude 235ISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.238 Chapter 10 • Virtue and Strengths of CharacterWeb ResourcesValues in Action Projectwww.viastrengths.org/index.aspx?ContentID=1 This isthe web site for the Values in Action Project. Followthe links to VIA Measurement Instruments and youcan register (free) to take a long or brief version of thecharacter strength inventories. You do have to providedemographic information that is used along with yourresponses in an online study of character strengths.Authentic Happinesswww.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu This is MartinSeligman’s site at the University of Pennsylvania. Thesame VIA Project measures of character strengths areavailable on this site. There is also a measure of forgiveness.You must log in, create a password, and providedemographic information to take the tests andhave them scored for you. A profile of scores on alltests is computed and can be accessed at anytime.Psychology of Religionvirtualreligion.net/vri/psych.html This site providesa large number of links to research and researchersin the psychology of religion, from classic works byWilliam James to recent studies.www.apa.org/about/division/div36.html This is theweb site for Division 36, Psychology of Religion ofthe American Psychological Association. Containsinformation about conferences and current research.www.bgsu.edu/organizations/cfdr/about/facultymembers/pargament.html This web site is byKenneth Pargament (Bowling Green University), oneof the top researchers in the psychology of religion.It provides listing of his past and recent research.Gratitude and Forgivenesswww.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/index.html This site for Michael McCullough providesaccess to research articles on gratitude and forgiveness,a gratitude questionnaire, and links to RobertEmmons and other researchers in this area.Suggested ReadingsBaumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings of life. New York:Guilford.Baumeister, R. F., & Exline, J. J. (1999). Virtue, personality,and social relations: Self-control as a moral muscle.Journal of Personality, 67, 1165–1194.Baltes, P. B. (1997). On the incomplete architecture ofhuman ontogeny: Selection, optimization, and compensationas foundations of developmental theory.American Psychologist, 52, 366–380.Emmons, R. A. (1999). The psychology of ultimate concerns:Motivation and spirituality in personality. NewYork: Guilford Press.Hill, P. C., & Pargament, K. I. (2003). Advances in the conceptualizationand measurement of religion and spirituality.American Psychologist, 58, 64–74.Koenig, H. G., & Cohen, H. J. (Eds.). (2002). The linkbetween religion and health: Psychoneuroimmunologyand the faith factor. New York: Oxford University Press.Koenig, H. G., McCullough, M. E., & Larson, D. B. (2001).Handbook of religion and health. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (Eds.). (2004). Positive psychologyin practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.McCullough, M. E. (Ed.). (1999). Forgiveness: Theory,research and practice. New York: Guilford Publications.Pargament, K. I. (1997). The psychology of religion andcoping: Theory, research and practice. New York:Guilford Publications.Paulus, D. L., Wehr, P., Harms, P. D., & Strasser, D. H.(2002). Use of exemplars to reveal implicit types of intelligence.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28,1051–1062.Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Characterstrengths and virtues: A handbook of classification.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association/New York: Oxford University Press.Spilka, B., Hood, R. W., Jr., Hunsberger, B., & Gorsuch, R.(2003). The psychology of religion: An empiricalapproach. New York: Guilford Press.ISBN 1-256-51557-4Positive Psychology, by Steve R. Baumgardner and Marie K. Crothers. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.