and on the assessment and treatment of psychological disorders. Topics like the normal functioning of human beings, the application of personal strengths, and experience of positive emotions were not subjects of key interest (Gable & Haidt, 2005; Seligman, 2000). In other words, psychology as a discipline has done very little to support the majority of the population, who are healthy and psychopathology-free, to live the psychological “good life” (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 5), meaning to become more productive and successful, and to develop a sense of positive engagement and meaning in life. This is what the science of positive psychology is destined to pursue.
Positive psychology was launched in 1998 by Martin Seligman during his term as president of the American Psychological Association (APA). One of his presidential initiatives was to bring forward the term “positive psychology,” to promote systematic research on flourishing individuals and thriving communities in order to learn how to foster happiness, and life and work satisfaction (Seligman, 1998). One of the main theoretical precursors is humanistic psychology. This psychological movement in the 1960s and 1970s assumed human beings to have an innate need to strive for personal growth, fulfillment, and satisfaction in life as a basic human motive. Whereas the practitioners of humanistic psychology were skeptical about scientific method, the positive psychology movement stated that “both strength and weakness” (Peterson & Seligman, 2004; p. 4) could be empirically studied. However, positive psychology is not intended to replace traditional models and methods that psychologists employ in their practice or research. It is meant to balance the positive and negative aspects of life and to empirically study human flourishing, covering the full range of what makes human life (Gable & Haidt, 2005). Specifically, the research of positive psychology centers on three topics (Peterson, 2006; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000):
(a) Positive subjective experiences (e.g., happiness, flow, pleasure)
(b) Positive individual characteristics (e.g., security or honesty as a value, courage or wisdom as a virtue, self-regulation or humor as a character strength)
(c) Positive institutions (e.g., families, workplaces, schools), which should enable the display of positive characteristics, like values, virtues, and character strengths, and which in turn foster positive experiences.
Positive psychology has grown rapidly in the last 18 years and now involves hundreds of researchers in the USA and all over the world. Much research has been conducted ever since to understand the factors and processes, which enable individuals and communities to lead the psychological good life (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).
←39 | 40→
2.2 Good character: The revival of research on positive traits
A further domain of research within positive psychology concerns the identification, measurement, and cultivation of good character as an expression of positive traits (Park & Peterson, 2009, 2010; Peterson & Seligman, 2003). Accordingly, a classification of virtues and character strengths was developed, intended to serve as a counterpart to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM; American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Peterson and Seligman (2004) introduced the VIA classification of strengths as a framework for the investigation of character, virtues, and character strengths (details on the VIA classification will be outlined in section 2.2.1).
The notion of character traces back to ancient philosophy, referring to a mark impressed upon a coin. Specifically, it originates from the Greek word charassein, which means to scratch or engrave. Accordingly, the understanding of character has a long history. Following Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (Aristotle, trans. 2000) the concept of character implies traditionally a variety of personal attributes to live a morally good life. Similarly, Aristotle and other early Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, Augustine, and Aquinas see character as the way to make someone a good person (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).
As compared to personality, character can be modified and developed with changing life circumstances and training activities (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). According to James (1899), character is the internal habit of thoughts, feelings, and action that everyone develops and that results in ultimate, authentic success. He saw the main task of a teacher as character building and understood character to be defined in the form of habits: “Your task is to build up a character in your pupils; and character, as I have so often said, consists in an organized set of habits of reaction” (James, 1899, p.108). Furthermore, he stated that “the (…) ‘character’ of an individual means really nothing but the habitual form of his associations. To break up bad associations or wrong ones, to build others in, to guide the associative tendencies into the most fruitful channels, is the educator’s principal task” (p. 57–58). Consequently, character is assumed to be capable of adaptation as a result of repetitive habits.
There is a broad variety of definitions on character as part of a complex positive psychological concept. Lickona (1991) sees character as doing the right thing despite outside pressure to the contrary. Furthermore, Berkowitz (2002) defines character as an individual set of psychological characteristics that affect the person’s ability to function morally. Pawelski (2003) summarizes a form of global definition of character stating that it is comprised of those characteristics that lead a person to do the right thing or not to do the right thing. Indeed, a ←40 | 41→common aspect of the various theoretical understanding of character is that it emphasizes volition and morality (Saucier & Srivastava, 2015).
The initial study of morality and character within personality psychology can be seen with Gordon Allport (e.g., Allport & Allport, 1921). Allport (1937, p. 51) assumed that when “personal effort is judged from the standpoint of some code” that is based on social standards it is called character. Accordingly, Allport also (1937, p. 52) stated that “character is personality evaluated.” He sought to exclude ethical judgments from personality research. For Allport, the more evaluative the term is, the less reference to personality exists and the less value for the psychologist is gained. He considered such an ethical perspective on personality not necessary for psychology. Indeed, during the period of Allport’s greatest influence, the use of the term “character” became uncommon in personality psychology. Overall there was a trend to have the terminology of character substituted by personality representing the inclusion of biophysical and psychological characteristics.
With the emergence of positive psychology at the beginning of the 21st century, the notion of character was taken up again as the inward determinant of a good life (Peterson, 2006). Specifically, Peterson and Seligman (2004) assumed that character is plural, not singular, and construed as a set of positive traits such as virtues and character strengths. Park and Peterson (2009, p. 1) refer to the importance of character with these significant words: “Good character is what we look for in leaders, what we look for in teachers and students, what we look for in colleagues at work, what parents look for in their children, and what friends look for in each other.” They continue by saying that good character “is not the absence of deficits and problems but rather a well-developed family of positive traits.” Peterson (2006) defines character as a family of individual differences, in principle distinct strengths that people possess to varying degrees, shown in thoughts, feelings, and actions. According to Boe (2017), a person can express his or her values through one’s character as a correlate of positive traits such as virtues. This understanding points to the fact that character and values are linked to each other. The VIA classification by Peterson and Seligman (2004) describes good character on three conceptual levels, where virtues as moral character traits constitute the highest level. Accordingly, good character is used primarily in relation to virtues (see section 3.6 on the conceptual difference between values and virtues).
It is worth mentioning that this new understanding of character within the framework of positive psychology relies on the notion of personality
