Article

Gifted Education International

1–13
Strength-based ª The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permission:
interventions: Their sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0261429416640334
gei.sagepub.com
importance in
application to the gifted

René T Proyer
Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany; University of Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland

Fabian Gander
University of Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland

Nancy Tandler
Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany

Abstract
Positive psychology has revived psychology’s abandoned interest in the study of morally
positively valued traits (the so-called character strengths) and virtues. We review lit-
erature generated on strength-based approaches and focus on applications in the
so-called positive psychology interventions. There seems to be great potential in this
approach for research in the field of giftedness and, of course, also when practically
working with gifted children and adolescents. We highlight some ideas for future
research directions.

Keywords
Character strengths, positive psychology, positive psychology intervention

Corresponding author:
René T Proyer, Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, 06108 Halle (Saale), Germany.
Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on May 28, 2016

2 Gifted Education International

Introduction
This contribution addresses the challenges and possibilities of a strength-based approach
in working with gifted children from a positive psychology (PP) perspective. In its
broadest sense, PP aims at studying what is best in people and focuses on emotions,
traits, and institutions that make our lives most worth living (Seligman and Csikszent-
mihalyi, 2000). When Martin Seligman was elected as president of the American Psy-
chological Association, he argued that psychology should broaden its focus—again—by
strengthening research efforts and evidence-based practice in areas other than mental
illnesses and diseases. Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) note, ‘‘Before World War
II, psychology had three distinct missions: curing mental illness, making the lives of all
people more productive and fulfilling, and identifying and nurturing high talent’’ (p. 6).
They refer to Terman’s seminal studies on giftedness (1939) as an example of an early
PP approach. We will focus on one specific area of research in PP, namely, research on
morally positively valued traits (i.e. character strengths).
There are hints on the relevance of PP variables in giftedness at many different levels.
For example, gifted students seem to differ from others by higher levels of eagerness to
learn and academic self-concepts and lower levels of test anxiety (Rost, 2000). This may
provide ground for the assumption that strengths such as a love of learning or curiosity
are of particular interest when working with gifted students. However, Rost (2000)
demonstrated for German fourth graders that gifted children did not differ from the
others in many other aspects, such as being integrated in the class and having many
friends. Comparable results were found for social aspects of Finnish A-level students
(Salmela and Uusiautti, 2015). They highlighted the importance of their close relation-
ships for sharing and encouragement and kindness and care for others. Terman and
colleagues (1925, 1947, 1959) prospectively followed high-IQ students and could further
demonstrate that they were more emotionally stable, had fewer emotional difficulties,
and were better adjusted when adults. Again, this could be translated into a strengths-
based framework. Nevertheless, research also outlined depressive moods as well as
emotional and social problems in gifted children (Berk, 2005). They were described
as very sensible to other people’s expectations and, therefore, vulnerable when being
criticized. Further, they were perceived as less cooperative and stubborn because of
being focused and concentrated. Thereby, the highest adjustment problems were
observed in students having extraordinary high IQs (180 and beyond; Hardman et al.,
2005) or extreme levels of giftedness (Winner, 2000). To help extremely gifted students
to overcome or deal with their problems and related troublesome social circumstances,
strength-based interventions could be a promising option. For students in general,
research has already demonstrated that supporting them to utilize their strengths leads
to happiness and well-being along with school satisfaction (Huebner et al., 2009).

PP, virtue, and character

It should be mentioned that PP is a relatively new discipline within psychology but has a
comparatively long history. One important earlier contribution has already been men-
tioned with Terman’s studies but also other work (mainly conducted in the field of

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on May 28, 2016

Proyer et al. 3

Humanistic Psychology) needs to be highlighted. For example, in 1958, Marie Jahoda

published a report entitled ‘‘Current concepts of positive mental health’’ to the Joint
Commission on Mental Illness and Health. There she reviews literature on mental health
and identifies various criteria for positive mental health (e.g. attitudes of an individual
toward his/her own self, growth, development, or self-actualization, autonomy, etc.).
One of the most remarkable statements in her book is the notion that ‘‘[ . . . ] the absence
of disease may constitute a necessary, but not a sufficient, criterion for mental health’’
(p. 15). Thus, the plea for studying the conditions that make the life well worth living
(e.g. Maslow, 1968), or studies on the (psychological) meaning in life (e.g. Frankl,
1959), or personal (optimal) development (e.g. Rogers, 1963) is much older than the
introduction of the term ‘‘positive psychology’’ as it is being used now, but it surely has
regained strength and attention by recent developments.
Three topics are at the center of PP: (a) positive subjective experiences (e.g. happiness
or pleasure), (b) positive individual traits (e.g. character strengths or talents), and (c)
positive institutions (e.g. families or schools; Peterson, 2006). Over the past years,
techniques have been developed for strengthening positive individual traits. Peterson
and Seligman (2004) propose a classification system (the Values-in-Action classifica-
tion) of 24 strengths and 6 virtues. Each strength is assigned to one virtue and the idea is
that a virtuous life can be pursued by living the respective strengths; for example, the
virtue of wisdom can be achieved through creativity, curiosity, open-mindedness, love of
learning, and perspective. Each of the strengths had to fulfill 10 criteria (e.g. it is ful-
filling, it is morally valued in its own right, its display does not diminish other people, it
should be trait like, etc.) to be included in the classification. The strengths are expected to
be universally positively valued and that they provide keys to the ‘‘good life.’’ The
Values-in-Action Inventory of Strengths (Peterson et al., 2005) and the Values-in-
Action Inventory of Strengths for Youth (VIA-Youth; Park and Peterson, 2006) are the
most frequently used instruments for the self-assessment of the 24 strengths.
There are numerous studies that provide support for the notion of a positive relation-
ship between the VIA strengths and various indicators of (subjective) well-being (e.g.,
Brdar et al., 2011; Buschor et al., 2013; Gander et al., 2012; Khumalo et al., 2008;
Martı́nez-Martı́ and Ruch, 2014; Park et al., 2004; Peterson et al., 2007; Ruch et al.,
2010). However, character strengths seem to contribute not only to different indicators of
subjective well-being but also to a broad range of other positive outcomes, such as
academic achievement (Lounsbury et al., 2009; Park and Peterson, 2008, 2009); physical
well-being (Proyer et al., 2013); job performance, positive experiences at work, seeing
one’s work as a calling, positive work-related behaviors (Avey et al., 2012; Gander et al.,
2012; Harzer and Ruch, 2012); or meaning, but also a pleasurable and eudaimonically
oriented lifestyle (Buschor et al., 2013;Littman-Ovadia and Steger, 2010; Peterson et al.,
2007). Research conducted with children and adolescents also points toward a stable
relationship of character strengths with subjective well-being (e.g. Gillham et al., 2011;
Park and Peterson, 2006; Ruch et al., 2014; see also Furlong et al., 2009). Additionally,
character strengths have been related to several positive school-related outcomes, such
as school achievement (i.e. grades), positive classroom behavior (Wagner and Ruch,
2012, 2015; Weber et al., 2016), popularity (Park and Peterson, 2006), and social func-
tioning at school (Shoshani and Slone, 2013). These studies support the notion that

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on May 28, 2016

4 Gifted Education International

character strengths play an important role in educational settings in several respects—

directly relating not only to academic success but also to supporting factors, such as
classroom behavior and social environments.

Character strengths-based interventions

Aside from these mostly correlational approaches, there is also the idea of using the
strengths in PP interventions; these are ‘‘[ . . . ] treatment methods or intentional activ-
ities that aim to cultivate positive feelings, behaviors, or cognitions’’ (Sin and Lyubo-
mirsky, 2009: 468). Such approaches are useful in studying causality in the relationship
between strengths and well-being. For example, Proyer et al. (2013) were interested in
testing the assumption that those strengths that typically correlate best with well-being
(i.e. curiosity, gratitude, hope, love, zest, plus humor) should primarily be targeted in
strengths-based intervention studies—in comparison to strengths that usually have the
comparatively lowest relationships (i.e. appreciation of beauty and excellence, creativ-
ity, love of learning, modesty, perspective, plus kindness). In short, findings suggest that
a 10-week group intervention focusing on the highly correlated strengths led to an
increase in life satisfaction in comparison with a group that underwent trainings for low
correlated strengths. However, participants in the latter group also seemed to benefit
from the program. An interesting side finding of this study was that those participants
benefitted most from the interventions (in both groups) that demonstrated an increase in
the strength of self-regulation over the course of the program. The authors have argued
that the structure of the program (i.e. regular meetings, ‘‘homework’’ assignments, etc.)
might have facilitated the development of self-regulation and, thereby, contributed to the
participants’ well-being. Numerous other studies exist that address specific indicators of
positive psychological functioning such as the appreciation of beauty (Diessner et al.,
2006), gratitude (Emmons and McCullough, 2003; Sheldon and Lyubomirsky, 2006), or
kindness (Otake et al., 2006; see also Lyubomirsky et al., 2005). A recent meta-analysis
provides strong support for the notion that positive interventions (including interventions
that are not explicitly based on strengths) can enhance well-being and reduce depressive
symptoms (Sin and Lyubomirsky, 2009).
Seligman et al. (2005) and others (e.g. Gander et al., 2013; Mitchell et al., 2009;
Mongrain and Anselmo-Matthews, 2012; Proyer et al., 2015) have shown that strengths-
based and other interventions could also be successfully conducted in web-based self-
administered settings. A well-replicated finding is that identifying one’s signature
strengths (i.e. one’s core strengths; see Peterson and Seligman, 2004) and using them
in a new way over the course of 1 week is beneficial in the sense of an increase in
happiness and amelioration of depressive symptoms. One important aspect is the ques-
tion of long-term effects and sustainable changes in well-being. Some of the placebo-
controlled studies conducted online have demonstrated effects for up to 6 months for
1-week interventions—in fact, this seems rather surprising, given the comparatively
short time needed for achieving such effects (e.g. writing down ‘‘three good things’’/
‘‘three blessings’’ each night for 7 consecutive days). A recent study has also shown that
the way people respond to these types of interventions (e.g. liking of the intervention,
early reactivity, etc.) predicts a robust portion of the variance in happiness (6%) and

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on May 28, 2016

Proyer et al. 5

depression (9%) after a time span of 3.5 years (after completion of the intervention;
Proyer et al., 2015). Overall, it seems as if such PP interventions hold great potential for
contributing to people’s well-being.

Character strength-based interventions for the gifted

We argue that this line of research also has the potential for the work with gifted children
and adolescents. In her seminal article on the origins and ends of giftedness, Winner
(2000) reviews literature on the social and emotional aspects of giftedness. She refers to
studies showing that extreme levels of giftedness may be associated, among others, with
isolation, nonconformity, or the tendency to hide own abilities in order to become more
popular. It is not surprising that ‘‘academics’’ (e.g. being nerdy) is one of the domains
covering potential reasons for being teased in Storch et al.’s (2004) Teasing Question-
naire. Hence, one might argue that a strength-based approach in working with the gifted
may help them in using their strengths more efficiently—in general and at school in
particular. Winner (2000) argues that ‘‘We need to intervene for the happiness and
mental health of gifted students’’ (p. 166), and it seems as if strength-based approaches
may be promising. It is further argued that programs that help gifted children and
adolescents to foster and cultivate their strengths can be a psychological resource, but
may also provide a challenge for them, appropriate to their desire for learning. Further-
more, strength-based approaches have a potential to increase the experience of positive
emotions—a key contributor to well-being (e.g. Fredrickson, 2001). Overall, tailoring
interventions not only to the relative weaknesses but also to the strengths of the gifted
seems important.
To the best of the knowledge of the authors there is no study published thus far on
whether specific strengths are more pronounced among the gifted in comparison with
those that are not gifted. Earlier studies have shown that it was possible to identify group-
specific profiles (e.g. for people with different work habits, Gander et al., 2012; for
people with Asperger’s syndrome, Samson and Antonelli, 2013; or for class clowns,
Ruch et al., 2015). Furthermore, there are first hints that certain strengths of wisdom,
such as curiosity, open-mindedness, and love of learning, are positively related to intel-
ligence, whereas certain strengths of temperance (i.e. modesty and self-regulation) and
transcendence (i.e. spirituality, gratitude, and appreciation of beauty and excellence)
demonstrate negative relations to intelligence (Proyer et al., 2015). Although these
relationships are usually small (in terms of effect sizes), it would be interesting to see
whether there are differences in the strengths profiles between those gifted and those
nongifted as well—and whether such differences are limited to strengths assigned to a
specific virtue (e.g. wisdom) or are of broader nature. This would also help tailoring
programs better to the needs of those particularly gifted. Although there are no studies on
the effectiveness of PP interventions among the gifted, a recent study has suggested that
interventions administered in group settings are more effective for those with higher
abilities (Proyer et al., 2016). Thus, they may be particularly appealing to gifted students.
It should be noted that such an account would not violate the idea of individual
differences among the gifted. Also, information about the dissimilarity of a student’s
profile with the profile of his/her peers would be of interest. In comparison with

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on May 28, 2016

6 Gifted Education International

traditional methods of direct instruction, cooperative learning facilitates positive atti-

tudes toward peers, school, and oneself in students in general, it fosters building positive
and supportive relationships, decreases levels of stress and anxiety, and further helps
students to be empathetic by being able to take other peoples’ perspectives (Felder and
Brent, 1994; for some caveats in this line of research see Fuchs and colleagues, 1998).
Additionally, it was shown that cooperative learning strategies, such as the jigsaw puzzle
(Hänze and Berger, 2007), might have a potential for facilitating strengths. Cooperative
learning strategies foster students’ needs for competence, autonomy, and social related-
ness as posited by self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Within this frame-
work, context factors supporting those basic needs facilitate the natural process of
intrinsic motivation and self-regulation. Therefore, educational programs for teachers
that help them to create context factors contributing to the development of those
strengths in gifted students may be beneficial. This also fits a basic plea for research
in PP, namely, that there is still a need to translate research to practice to replace the
problem-solving approach and to strengthen the idea of optimal functioning for all
children in teachers and other school-related professionals (Huebner and Hills, 2011).

Challenges and possibilities in interventions for the gifted

Winner (2000) lists four dangers that gifted students have to face, namely:

(1.) The danger of pushing so hard that the intrinsic motivation and rage to master these
children start out with become a craving for the extrinsic rewards of fame. (2.) The danger of
pushing so hard that these children later feel they missed out on having a normal childhood.
(3.) The danger of freezing a prodigy into a safe, technically perfect but noninnovative way
of performing because this is what he or she has been rewarded for doing so well. (4.) The
danger of the psychological wound caused by the fall from being a famous prodigy who can
perform perfectly to a forgotten adult who can do no more than perform perfectly.’’ (p. 166)

We argue that strength-based approaches have a potential in preventing such dangers

from occurring. For example, Peterson and Seligman (2004) posit that signature
strengths are pursued for their own sake (i.e. intrinsically motivated); they are also
associated with a steep learning curve regarding topics associated with the strengths.
Hence, using signature strengths may not only be a path toward well-being but also help
gifted children and adolescents to stay intrinsically motivated over a longer period of
time. Also, the identification and usage of one’s own strengths may contribute to the
impression of having a ‘‘normal childhood’’ in the sense of experiencing authenticity (a
strength in itself), and of being true to one’s own personality traits—be it for the pursuit
of one’s talents, or in a broader sense when being oneself. Knowledge about and use of
one’s own signature strengths should also enable personal growth but further contribute
to the experience of positive emotions (when using these strengths). The latter have been
found to broaden the action and thought repertoire but also to facilitate building up more
resources (personal, physical, and/or social; see Fredrickson, 2001). With respect to
Winner’s fourth danger, one might argue that strength-based approaches may also be
helpful to use resources developed as a child or an adolescent in later life and may also be

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on May 28, 2016

Proyer et al. 7

seen as a resource that can be used for joint personal development throughout one’s life.
We do not propose strength-based approaches as a one fits it all strategy to all dangers
listed by Winner or to other problems that the gifted may face, but rather we suggest that
these approaches could be a contributor to their well-being and, more generally speak-
ing, contribute to the mastery of tasks in everyday life as well as for coping with
educational and professional challenges.

Paragons of character
Many authors (e.g. Lubinski and Benbow, 2000) have argued that an individual differ-
ences approach when thinking about giftedness in terms of academic and nonacademic
attributes is important. We argue that strengths should not only be seen as additional
variables that might positively contribute to the development of giftedness (e.g., by
facilitating learning or enabling creative productivity; Renzulli, 2012), but that there
might also be paragons and highly gifted individuals with respect to character strengths.
In fact, one of the criteria that a trait had to fulfill to be included in the VIA classification
was the existence of paragons of the respective strength (Peterson and Seligman, 2004).
In a similar vein, it has been argued for other areas of giftedness (e.g. Pfeiffer, 2008;
Renzulli, 2002; Sternberg, 1997) that those excelling in one or more strengths should
show their giftedness with no or minimal training of the respective strength(s)—yet their
(signature) strengths may help them to keep (intrinsically) motivated to pursue their
particular set of strengths. We might think of people who excel in their use of strengths
by being exceptional leaders (e.g. leadership, teamwork, fairness), or who excel acade-
mically (e.g. by nurturing their curiosity, creativity, or love of learning), or who would be
recognized for their humanistic engagement (e.g. kindness, love, or social intelligence).
The question arises on how the strengths of these people can be nurtured and sup-
ported—and what could be expected from such interventions. Programs such as the ones
mentioned but also single authors (e.g. Magyar-Moe, 2009; Parks and Schueller, 2014;
Peterson, 2006) point to interventions for cultivating each of the strengths put forward by
Peterson and Seligman (2004). Linkins and colleagues (2015) argue that traditional
character education programs focus on a narrow subset of strengths (and virtues only),
and note that ‘‘[ . . . ] the purpose of character education is not to enforce or impose, but
rather to reveal, elicit, and nurture existing strengths’’ (p. 65). The Positive Psychology
for Youth Program (e.g., Gillham et al., 2013; Seligman et al., 2009; see also Linkins
et al., 2015; Park and Peterson, 2009) seems to encompass such a broader approach. It
has also been argued that fostering strengths contributes to well-being not only when
focusing on one’s signature strengths but also when focusing on one’s lesser strengths—
depending on the overall virtuousness as a moderator of the effects (Proyer et al., 2015).
Hence, there are programs that may be used for supporting children, adolescents, and
also adults in their development of strengths—not only for their personal benefit (e.g.
well-being, flourishing, personal growth, their ‘‘social capital’’) but also presumably for
the good of a broader group of people (e.g. other pupils in the classroom, work col-
leagues, friends, partners), or even larger entities (e.g. schools, families, companies,
communities).

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on May 28, 2016

8 Gifted Education International

Suggestions for practice

Of course, the question emerges on how these ideas could be translated into practice. We
propose a sequential strategy in four steps. In step 1 (knowing one’s strengths), all
children in a class should get to know their own strengths; this means completing
subjective measures for character strengths or conducting structured interviews for
identifying the strengths profile and the signature strengths. Step 2 (sharing common
experiences) should help the pupils and teachers to find a common language and increase
the awareness of the strengths of everyone involved. Step 3 (implementation of inter-
ventions) might entail interventions aimed at the signature strengths of each individual
(for further strengthening the strengths, increasing well-being and ameliorating depres-
sive symptoms, and becoming more true to one’s inner self), and/or addressing strengths
that are particularly relevant in the classroom (see Wagner and Ruch, 2015; Weber and
Ruch, 2012; Weber et al., 2016). Finally, step 4 (evaluation) might consist of feedback
circles that help evaluating the usefulness of these interventions and the strength-based
approach in general.
Work of the Zurich-based group (e.g. Ruch et al., 2015; Wagner and Ruch, 2015;
Weber and Ruch, 2012; Weber et al., 2016) has shown that character strengths play a role
in school, for example, when identifying positive classroom behaviors or strengths that are
of particular importance in school—for both academic success and personal and social
development. Taken together with research generated in other groups and work that has
been done on strength-based interventions, the notion of considering character strengths in
working with the gifted seems a promising approach for future research and practice.
Of course, this can only be seen as a rough proposal, and a thorough investigation of
the strength profile of gifted children and adolescents would be a first step in narrowing
down particular interventions tailored to their needs. We see a great potential in supple-
menting the existing programs with a strengths-based approach, and we hope that this
proposal serves to increase interest in researchers and practitioners in the field. Given
that PP is a comparatively young discipline within psychology, preliminary results seem
promising and encourage further work in this field.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: The preparation of this article has been facilitated by research grants
of the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF; 100014_132512 and 100014_149772) awarded
to RTP. The authors are grateful to Dr Frank A Rodden for proofreading the manuscript.

References
Avey JB, Luthans F, Hannah ST, et al. (2012) Impact of employees’ character strengths of wisdom
on stress and creative performance. Human Resource Management Journal 22: 165–181. DOI:
10.1111/j.1748-8583.2010.00157.x.

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on May 28, 2016

Proyer et al. 9

Berk LE (2005) Infants, Children, and Adolescents. 5th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Brdar I, Anić P and Rijavec M (2011) Character strengths and well-being: are there gender
differences? In: Brdar I (ed) The Human Pursuit of Well-being: A Cultural Approach. Dor-
drecht: Springer, pp. 145–156. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-1375-8_13
Buschor C, Proyer RT and Ruch W (2013) Self- and peer-rated character strengths: how do they
relate to satisfaction with life and orientations to happiness? Journal of Positive Psychology 8:
116–127.
Diessner R, Rust T, Solom RC, et al. (2006) Beauty and hope: a moral beauty intervention. Journal
of Moral Education 35: 301–317. DOI: 10.1080/03057240600874430.
Emmons RA and McCullough ME (2003) Counting blessings versus burdens: an experimental
investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 84: 377–389. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.377
Felder RM and Brent R (1994) Cooperative Learning in Technical Courses: Procedures, Pitfalls,
and Payoffs. Available at: http://eric.ed.gov/?id¼ED377038.
Frankl V (1959) Man’s Search for Meaning. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Fredrickson BL (2001) The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the
broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist 56: 218–226. DOI:
10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218.
Fuchs LS, Fuchs D, Hamlett CL, et al. (1998) High-achieving students’ interactions and perfor-
mance on complex mathematical tasks as a function of homogeneous and heterogeneous
pairings. American Educational Research Journal 35: 227–267. DOI: 10.3102/
00028312035002227.
Furlong MJ, Gilman R, Huebner ES, et al. (eds) (2009) Strengths of character in schools. In
Handbook of Positive Psychology in Schools. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 65–76.
Gander F, Proyer RT, Ruch W, et al. (2012) The good character at work: an initial study on the
contribution of character strengths in identifying healthy and unhealthy work-related behavior
and experience patterns. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 85:
895–904. DOI: 10.1007/s00420-012-0736-x
Gander F, Proyer RT, Ruch W, et al. (2013) Strength-based positive interventions: further evi-
dence for their potential in enhancing well-being and alleviating depression. Journal of Happi-
ness Studies 14: 1241–1259. DOI: 10.1007/s10902-012-9380-0.
Gillham J, Abenavoli R, Brunwasser S, et al. (2013) Resilience education. In: David S, Boniwell I
and Ayers AC (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Happiness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.
609–630.
Gillham J, Adams-Deutsch Z, Werner J, et al. (2011) Character strengths predict subjective
well-being during adolescence. The Journal of Positive Psychology 6: 31–44. DOI: 10.1080/
17439760.2010.536773.
Hänze M and Berger R (2007) Cooperative learning, motivational effects, and student characteris-
tics: an experimental study comparing cooperative learning and direct instruction in 12th grade
physics classes. Learning and Instruction 17: 29–41. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.11.004.
Hardman ML, Drew CJ and Egan WM (2005) Human Exceptionality: Society, School, and Family.
Belmont: Wadsworth.
Harzer C and Ruch W (2012) When the job is a calling: the role of applying one’s signature
strengths at work. The Journal of Positive Psychology 7: 362–371. DOI: 10.1080/17439760.
2012.702784.

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on May 28, 2016

10 Gifted Education International

Huebner ES, Gilman R, Reschly AL, et al. (2009) Positive schools. In: Lopez SJ and Snyder
CR (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology. New York: Oxford University
Press, pp. 561–568.
Huebner ES and Hills KJ (2011) Does the positive psychology movement have legs for children in
schools? The Journal of Positive Psychology 6: 88–94. DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2010.536778.
Jahoda M (1958) Current Concepts of Positive Mental Health. Vol. xxi. New York: Basic Books.
Khumalo IP, Wissing MP and Temane QM (2008) Exploring the validity of the values-in-action
inventory of strengths (VIA-IS) in an African context. Journal of Psychology in Africa 18:
133–142. DOI: 10.1080/14330237.2008.10820180.
Linkins M, Niemiec RM, Gillham J, et al. (2015) Through the lens of strength: a framework for
educating the heart. The Journal of Positive Psychology 10: 64–68. DOI: 10.1080/17439760.
2014.888581.
Littman-Ovadia H and Steger M (2010) Character strengths and well-being among volunteers and
employees: toward an integrative model. The Journal of Positive Psychology 5: 419–430. DOI:
10.1080/17439760.2010.516765.
Lounsbury JW, Fisher LA, Levy J, et al. (2009) An investigation of character strengths in relation
to the academic success of college students. Individual Differences Research 7: 52–69.
Lubinski D and Benbow CP (2000) States of excellence. American Psychologist 55: 137–150.
DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.137.
Lyubomirsky S, King L and Diener E (2005) The benefits of frequent positive affect: does
happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin 131: 803–855. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.
131.6.803.
Magyar-Moe JL (2009) Therapist’s Guide to Positive Psychological Interventions. Burlington:
Academic Press.
Martı́nez-Martı́ ML and Ruch W (2014) Character strengths and well-being across the life span:
data from a representative sample of German-speaking adults living in Switzerland. Frontiers
in Psychology 5: 1253. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01253.
Maslow AH (1968) Toward a Psychology of Being. New York: Van Nostrand.
Mitchell J, Stanimirovic R, Klein B, et al. (2009) A randomised controlled trial of a self-guided
internet intervention promoting well-being. Computers in Human Behavior 25: 749–760. DOI:
10.1016/j.chb.2009.02.003.
Mongrain M and Anselmo-Matthews T (2012) Do positive psychology exercises work? A replica-
tion of Seligman et al. (2005). Journal of Clinical Psychology 68: 382–389. DOI: 10.1002/jclp.
21839.
Otake K, Shimai S, Tanaka-Matsumi J, et al. (2006) Happy people become happier through
kindness: a counting kindnesses intervention. Journal of Happiness Studies 7: 361–375. DOI:
10.1007/s10902-005-3650-z.
Park N and Peterson C (2006) Moral competence and character strengths among adolescents: the
development and validation of the values in action inventory of strengths for youth. Journal of
Adolescence 29: 891–909. DOI: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.04.011.
Park N and Peterson C (2008) Positive psychology and character strengths: application to
strengths-based school counseling. Professional School Counseling 12: 85–92.
Park N and Peterson C (2009) Strengths of character in schools. In: Gilman R, Huebner ES
and Furlong MJ (eds) Handbook of Positive Psychology in Schools. New York: Routledge,
pp. 65–76.

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on May 28, 2016

Proyer et al. 11

Parks AC and Schueller SM (ed.) (2014) The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Positive Psychological
Interventions. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Park N, Peterson C and Seligman MEP (2004) Strengths of character and well-being.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 23: 603–619. DOI: 10.1521/jscp.23.5.603.
50748.
Peterson C (2006) A Primer in Positive Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Peterson C and Seligman MEP (2004) Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Clas-
sification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Peterson C, Park N and Seligman ME (2005) Assessment of character strengths. In: Koocher GP,
Norcross JC and Hill III SS (eds) Psychologists’ Desk Reference, 2nd ed., Vol. 3. New York:
Oxford University Press, pp. 93–98.
Peterson C, Ruch W, Beermann U, et al. (2007) Strengths of character, orientations to happiness,
and life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology 2: 149–156. DOI: 10.1080/
17439760701228938.
Pfeiffer SI (ed.) (2008) Handbook of Giftedness in Children: Psychoeducational Theory,
Research, and Best Practices. Vol. viii. New York: Springer.
Proyer RT, Gander F and Ruch W (2015) Character strengths and intelligence. Unpublished data
set. Switzerland: University of Zurich.
Proyer RT, Gander F, Wellenzohn S, et al. (2013) What good are character strengths beyond
subjective well-being? The contribution of the good character on self-reported health-oriented
behavior, physical fitness, and the subjective health status. Journal of Positive Psychology 8:
222–232.
Proyer RT, Gander F, Wellenzohn S, et al. (2015) Strengths-based positive psychology interven-
tions: a randomized placebo-controlled online trial on long-term effects for a signature
strengths- vs. a lesser strengths-intervention. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 456. DOI: 10.3389/
fpsyg.2015.00456.
Proyer RT, Gander F, Wellenzohn S, et al. (2016) Addressing the role of personality, ability, and
positive and negative affect in positive psychology interventions: findings from a randomized
intervention based on the authentic happiness theory and extensions. The Journal of Positive
Psychology. Epub ahead of print 18 February 2016. DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2015.1137622.
Proyer RT, Wellenzohn S, Gander F, et al. (2015) Toward a better understanding of what makes
positive psychology interventions work: predicting happiness and depression from the person
 intervention fit in a follow-up after 3.5 years. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being 7:
108–128. DOI: 10.1111/aphw.12039.
Proyer RT, Ruch W and Buschor C (2013) Testing strengths-based interventions: a preliminary
study on the effectiveness of a program targeting curiosity, gratitude, hope, humor, and zest for
enhancing life satisfaction. Journal of Happiness Studies 14: 275–292. DOI: 10.1007/
s10902-012-9331-9.
Renzulli JS (2002) Emerging conceptions of giftedness: building a bridge to the new century.
Exceptionality 10: 67–75. DOI: 10.1207/S15327035EX1002_2.
Renzulli JS (2012) Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st
century: a four-part theoretical approach. Gifted Child Quarterly 56: 150–159. DOI: 10.1177/
0016986212444901.
Rogers CR (1963) The concept of the fully functioning person. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research
& Practice 1: 17–26. DOI: 10.1037/h0088567.

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on May 28, 2016

12 Gifted Education International

Rost DH (ed) (2000) Hochbegabte und Hochleistende Jugendliche. Neue Ergebnisse Aus dem
Marburger Hochbegabtenprojekt [Gifted and High Achieving Adolescents: New Results from
the Marburg Giftedness Project]. Münster: Waxmann.
Ruch W, Platt T and Hofmann J (2015) The character strengths of class clowns. Frontiers in
Psychology 5: 1075. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01075.
Ruch W, Proyer RT, Harzer C, et al. (2010) Values in action inventory of strengths (VIA-IS):
adaptation and validation of the German version and the development of a peer-rating form.
Journal of Individual Differences 31: 138–149. DOI: 10.1027/1614-0001/a000022.
Ruch W, Weber M, Park N, et al. (2014) Character strengths in children and adolescents: reliability
and initial validity of the German values in action inventory of strengths for youth (German
VIA-Youth). European Journal of Psychological Assessment 30: 57–64. DOI: 10.1027/
1015-5759/a000169.
Ryan RM and Deci EL (2000) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new
directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25: 54–67. DOI: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.
Salmela M and Uusiautti S (2015) A positive psychological viewpoint for success at school – 10
characteristic strengths of the Finnish high-achieving students. High Ability Studies 26:
117–137. DOI: 10.1080/13598139.2015.1019607.
Samson AC and Antonelli Y (2013) Humor as character strength and its relation to life satisfaction
and happiness in Autism spectrum disorders. Humor 26: 477–491. DOI: 10.1515/
humor-2013-0031.
Seligman MEP and Csikszentmihalyi M (2000) Positive psychology: an introduction. American
Psychologist 55: 5–14. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5.
Seligman MEP, Ernst RM, Gillham J, et al. (2009) Positive education: positive psychology and
classroom interventions. Oxford Review of Education 35: 293–311. DOI: 10.1080/
03054980902934563.
Seligman MEP, Steen TA, Park N, et al. (2005) Positive psychology progress: empirical validation
of interventions. American Psychologist 60: 410–421. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.410.
Sheldon KM and Lyubomirsky S (2006) Achieving sustainable gains in happiness: change your
actions, not your circumstances. Journal of Happiness Studies 7: 55–86. DOI: 10.1007/
s10902-005-0868-8.
Shoshani A and Slone M (2013) Middle school transition from the strengths perspective: young
adolescents’ character strengths, subjective well-being, and school adjustment. Journal of
Happiness Studies 14: 1163–1181. DOI: 10.1007/s10902-012-9374-y.
Sin NL and Lyubomirsky S (2009) Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms
with positive psychology interventions: a practice-friendly meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical
Psychology 65: 467–487. DOI: 10.1002/jclp.20593.
Sternberg RJ (1997) Successful Intelligence. New York: Plume.
Storch EA, Roth DA, Coles ME, et al. (2004) The measurement and impact of childhood teasing in
a sample of young adults. Journal of Anxiety Disorders 18: 681–694. DOI: 10.1016/j.janxdis.
2003.09.003.
Terman LM (1925) Genetic Studies of Genius. Mental and Physical Traits of a Thousand Gifted
Children. Palo Alto: Stanford Univ. Press.
Terman LM (1939) The gifted student and his academic environment. School & Society 49: 65–73.
Terman LM and Oden MH (1947) The Gifted Child Grows Up: Twenty-five Years’ Follow-up of a
Superior Group. Vol. xiv. Palo Alto: Stanford Univ. Press.

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on May 28, 2016

Proyer et al. 13

Terman LM and Oden MH (1959) The Gifted Group at Mid-life: Thirty-five Years’ Follow-up of
the Superior Child. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Wagner L and Ruch W (2015) Good character at school: positive classroom behavior mediates the
link between character strengths and school achievement. Personality and Social Psychology 6:
610. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00610.
Weber M and Ruch W (2012) The role of a good character in 12-year-old school children: Do
character strengths matter in the classroom? Child Indicators Research 5: 317–334. DOI: 10.
1007/s12187-011-9128-0.
Weber M, Wagner L and Ruch W (2016) Positive feelings at school: on the relationships between
students’ character strengths, school-related affect, and school functioning. Journal of Happi-
ness Studies 17: 341–355. DOI: 10.1007/s10902-014-9597-1.
Winner E (2000) The origins and ends of giftedness. American Psychologist 55: 159–169. DOI:
10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.159.

Author biographies
René T. Proyer is with the Department of Psychology at the Martin-Luther University
Halle-Wittenberg (Germany) and the Department of Psychology at the University of
Zurich (Switzerland).

Fabian Gander is with the Department of Psychology at the University of Zurich

(Switzerland).

Nany Tandler is with the the Department of Psychology at the Martin-Luther University
Halle-Wittenberg (Germany).

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on May 28, 2016