Keys to Positive Youth Development
Nansook Park
Character strengths are foundations of positive youth development and thriving. Good
character is plural, not singular, comprised of a family of positive traits manifest in one's
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Recent research findings show that character strengths
are related to academic success, life satisfaction, and well-being for children and youth.
C
haracter matters. Good character is central to
individual and societal well-being. Good character is what people look for in leaders and in work
colleagues, what parents look for in their children,
what siblings look for in their brothers and sisters,
and what friends look for in each other. Good character is not simply the absence of deficits, problems,
and pathology, but rather a well-developed family
of positive traits.
What is the good of a person, and how can good character be built among children and youth? Through
the ages, cultivating good character among children
and youth has been a universal goal for parenting
and education. Despite the importance of good character, scholars largely neglected this topic throughout much of the 20th century. Positive psychology
has refocused scientific attention on character, identifying it as one of the pillars of this new field and
central to the understanding of the psychological
good life (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).
42 I reclaiming children and youth www.reclaimingjournal.com
Good character is at the core of positive youth development. Baumrind (1998) noted that, "it takes virtuous character to will the good, and competence to
do good well" (p. 13). Most schooling and youth programs today focus on helping youth acquire skills
and abilities—reading, writing, doing math, and
thinking critically—that help them to achieve their
life goals. However, without good character, individuals may not have the desire to do the right thing.
Not only do character strengths prevent undesirable
life outcomes (Botvin, Baker, Dusenbury, Botvin, &
Diaz, 1995) but they also are important in their own
right as indicators and indeed causes of healthy
and positive life-long development and thriving
(Colby & Damon, 1992; Park, 2004a; Weissberg &
Greenberg, 1997). Growing evidence shows that
certain strengths of character—for example, hope,
kindness, social intelligence, self-control, and perspective—can buffer against the negative effects of
stress and trauma, preventing or mitigating disorders in their wake. In addition, character strengths
help youth to thrive. Good character is associated
with desired outcomes such as school success, leadership, tolerance, kindness, altruism, the valuing
of diversity, and the ability to delay gratification
(Scales, Benson, Leffert, & Blyth, 2000). In addition, it is associated with reduced problems such
as substance use, alcohol abuse, smoking, violence,
teenage pregnancy, depression, and suicidal ideation (see Park, 2004a for a review).
The Values in Action (VIA) Project
For several years, guided by the perspective of
positive psychology (Peterson, 2006), we have
been involved in a project that addresses measuring important strengths of character and how to
measure them (Park & Peterson, 2006; Peterson &
Seligman, 2004). Our project—The Values in Action (VIA) Classification of Strengths—focuses on
what is right about people and specifically about
the strengths of character that contribute to optimal development. The project first identified components of good character and then devised ways
to assess these components, providing a starting
point for the systematic investigation of character.
The VIA Classification identifies 24 widely-valued
character strengths and organizes them under six
broad virtues (see Table i).
Good character must be measured in ways that
do justice to its breadth. This project approaches
good character as a famiiy of positive characteristics reflected in feelings, thoughts, and actions,
each of which exists in degrees, with some people
having more and some people having less of any
given strength of character. To convey the multidimensionality of good character, its components
are called character strengths. One needs to be cautious about searching for single indicators of good
character. There is no reason for educators and professionals to refrain from assessing a single component of good character—kindness or hope, for
example—but it would be misleading to then treat
this single component as the whole of character.
Individuals might be very kind or very hopeful but
lack the other components of good character. They
can, of course, be described as kind or hopeful, but
only as that. Good character can only be captured
by a set of components that varies across people.
Good character is at the core of
positive youth development
The VIA Inventory of Strengths for Youth (VIAYouth) is a self-report survey that allows for a comprehensive assessment of the 24 character strengths
amongyouth ages ro-17. The assessment occurs in a
single 45-minute session on average. Those who are
aged 18 or older can use VIA Inventory of Strengths
(VIA-IS). These surveys are available online at no
cost (www.viastrengths.org or www.authentichappiness.org). Once individuals register on the website and complete the strengths survey, feedback is
given about one's top strengths—called "signature
strengths." Helping youth to identify their signature strengths and use them in their everyday lives
may provide a route to a psychologically fulfilling
life (Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005).
Here are a few caveats. Positive traits not included
among a respondent's signature strengths are not
necessarily weaknesses but simply lesser strengths in
comparison to the others. The order of top strengths
(e.g., among one's top 5 strengths) should not be interpreted in an overly rigid way because there may
be no meaningful differences among them.
Recognizing, Cultivating, and Building
Upon Character Strengths
Evidence concerning the correlates and positive
outcomes of the character strengths is accumulating. Although all strengths of character contribute
to fulfillment—happiness broadly construed—
certain positive traits are more robustly associated
with well-being and fulfillment than others (Park,
& Peterson, 2006). Overall, the youth in America
show most of the components of good character.
summer 2009 volume 18, number 2 I 43
Despite widespread negative perceptions of youth,
the majority of young people have developed character strengths. Among them, gratitude, humor,
and love are most common, whereas prudence, forgiveness, spirituality, and self-regulation are least
common, much as is found among adults.
In general, the strengths of character consistently
related to life satisfaction are gratitude, hope, zest,
curiosity, and perhaps most importantly, love, defined as the ability to sustain reciprocated close
relationships with other people (Park & Peterson,
2006; Park, Peterson, & Seligman, 2004). Thus, for
a good life, individuals need to cultivate in particular thesefivestrengths.
One measures what one values
and one values what one
nieasures.
These findings have significant Implications for
educators, parents, mental health professionals,
and policy makers who concern themselves with
promoting positive youth development. First,
schools and youth programs should start to measure children's assets, such as character strengths,
as much as deficits. Measures of problems, deficits,
and weaknesses have a long lineage within education and mental health, whereas measures of positive development such as character strengths are
neither as numerous nor as well developed (Park &
Peterson, 2005). For the most part, schools, youth
programs, and societies rarely monitor positive development and outcomes, despite the proliferation
of character education programs.
It has been said that one measures what one values
and that one values what one measures. If society really values good characteramong children and youth,
researchers should start assessing character and paying attention to its development. Society should take
seriously what researchers find. Under the mandate
of No Child Left Behind, all schools in the United
States are busy measuring student academic abilities
and monitoring the progress of learning. Perhaps
some day schools will assess the character strengths
of students and record them on report cards.
Second, educators and policy makers concerned
with educating happy, healthy, and successful children and youth will want to pay explicit attention
to character strengths. Research consistently shows
that strengths of the "heart" that connect people together—like love and gratitude—are much
more strongly associated with well-being than are
strengths of the "head" that are individual in nature—like creativity, critical thinking, and aesthetic
appreciation (Park & Peterson, 2008a ; Park, Peterson, & Seligman, 2004). Formal education stresses
the latter strengths, but if a goal of education and
youth programs is to encourage the healthy and
good life, the research results suggest that the former strengths deserve attention as well.
Our research also showed that students' academic
achievement was significantly influenced by a set
of character strengths above-and-beyond intelligence. Among middle-school students, the character strengths of perseverance, fairness, love,
gratitude, honesty, hope, and perspective predicted
end-of-year grade point average.
Character strengths were also related to popularity
of youth and to measures of psychopathology. The
strengths of hope, zest, and leadership were substantially related to fewer internalizing problems
such as depression and anxiety disorders, whereas
the strengths of persistence, honesty, prudence,
and love were substantially related to fewer externalizing problems such as aggression. Also, "popular" youth were more likely to score highly on
VI A-Youth scales measuring civic strengths such as
leadership and fairness and temperance strengths
such as self-regulation, prudence, and forgiveness.
Cultivating good character
among children and youth has
been a universal goal for
parenting and education.
These findings imply that the encouragement of
certain character strengths would not only make
students happier, healthier, and more socially connected but also help them attain better grades.
Working on students' character is not a luxury but a
necessity, and it entails no tradeoff with traditional
"academic" concerns.
Third, the VIA classification provides a vocabulary for people to talk about character strengths in
an appropriately sophisticated way (Park, 2004a;
Park & Peterson, 2008a). Simply saying that someone has good character (or not) does not lead anywhere useful. In contrast, using the VIA classification, people can describe the profile of character
strengths that characterizes each child and youth.
As previously mentioned, VIA measures not only
44 I reclaiming children and youth www.reclaimingjournal.com
Table i
VIA CLASSIFICATION OF STRENGTHS
1.
Wisdom and Knowledge—cogtiitive strengths that entail the acquisition and use of knowledge
creativity
2.
curiosity
open-mindedness
Humanity—interpersonal
kindness
4.
perseverance
zest
strengths that entail "tending and befriending" others
sociai intelligence
leadership
teamwork
Temperance—strengths that protect against excess
forgiveness
6.
love
bravery
Justice—-civic strengths that underlie healthy community life
fairness
5.
perspective
Courage—emotional strengths that involve exercise of will to accomplish goals in the face of
opposition, either external or internal
honesty and authenticity
3.
iove of learning
modesty
prudence
self-regulation
Transcendence—strengths that build connections to the larger universe and provide meaning
appreciation of beauty
gratitude
allow the comparison of character strengths across
individuals but also within individuals. That is, the
VIA measures can be scored ipsatively (e.g., rank
ordered)—to identify an individual's "signature
strengths" relative to his or her other strengths.
Everybody has strengths regardless of where those
stand compared to others. This strength-based approach is particularly useful for working with students with a history of disability, low achievement,
and troubles. When we compare these students
against the norm or other students, as often we do,
it is hard to find anything at which they are good.
However, if we compare the 24 strengths within an
individual, we can identify those strengths that are
stronger than others. And then, educators, parents
and professionals can help children and youth to
use these strengths in their lives, in relationships,
at play, and in school.
These strength-based approaches can be used with
children and youth at any level. Because signature
strengths are the ones students already possess, it
is often easier and more enjoyable for students to
work with them. Once children and youth build
their confidence by continuing to use their signature strengths, they can be taught how to use these
strengths to work on less-developed strengths. It
is frustrating and difficult to work only on weaknesses and problems from the beginning. Often
hope
humor
spirituality and religiousness
children give up early or become defensive about
their problems. However, starting discussions and
interventions with the strengths of individuals can
build rapport and increase motivation. The net effect of a strength-based approach should be greater
success of interventions.
In a study with adults, individuals completed a VIA
survey and identified their top strengths, which
they were then asked to use in novel ways (Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005). Relative to a
comparison group without this instruction, these
individuals showed significant increases in happiness as well as decreases in depression at the six
month follow-up. Not surprisingly, these changes
were evident only if research participants continued to find new ways to use their strengths. Finding
novel ways to use strengths every day is therefore
critical and reflects the importance of ongoing personal effort in producing a nourishing life.
Fourth, given the importance of character to the
psychological good life, questions arise about how
good character might be cultivated. This work is in
its infancy, and to date, only a handful of character
strengths have been seriously considered. It seems
that a variety of influences contribute to development of good character—genetics, family, schools,
peers, and communities.
summer 2009 volume 18, number 2 | 45
According to Aristotle, virtues—reflections of the
individual's character—can he taught and acquired
only by practicing them. Aquinas further argued
that a virtue is a habit that people can develop by
choosing the good and consistently acting in accordance with it. Other scholars have emphasized
that character must be developed by action and not
merely by thinking or talking about it (e.g., Maudsley, 1898). These various notions about virtues all
suggest that character can be cultivated by good
parenting, schooling, and socialization and that
it becomes instantiated through habitual action.
Character development programs should teach
specific activities of strengths and encourage youth
to keep using them in their daily lives (Park & Peterson, 2008b). Saying "do your best or be the best
you can be" is not an effective way to cultivate good
character. Children and youth need to be instructed to choose a target strength that they want to focus on, set the specific and measurable goal, and devise a concrete action plan to achieve the goal. For
example, if kindness is the target strength, saying
hello to at least one new person each day at school
is an effective goal and action plan. Continuous
monitoring and journaling of progress and making
a life style change are critical.
Character education based on each child's character strength profile may be more effective than a
general program for all children and youth. Simply
chanting slogans, putting up banners, or holding
monthly school assemblies will not be as effective
as creating an individualized program for each
child that encourages him or her to behave in different ways. Positive role models are key for character development (Bandura, 1977; Sprafkin, Liebert,
& Poulos, 1975). Important adults in youths' lives
are character mentors and they can start by modeling character through their own actions.
Conclusion
Character is vital force for positive development
and societal well-being. Character strengths play
important roles in positive youth development, not
only as broad-protective factors, preventing or mitigating psychopathology and problems, but also
as enabling conditions that promote thriving and
flourishing. Children and youth with certain sets of
character strengths are happier, do better at school,
are more popular among peers, and have fewer psychological and behavior problems. These strengths
can be cultivated and strengthened by appropriate
parenting, schooling, various youth development
programs, and healthy communities.
Problem-focused approaches can be useful only in
reducing and treating the specific targeted problems. But they do not necessarily prepare young
people to have healthy, fulfilling, and productive
lives. In contrast, strength-based approaches may
pay much greater dividends, not only preventing or
reducing specific problems, but also building moral, healthy, and happy people who can overcome
challenges in life and enjoy a good and fulfilling
life(Cowen, 1998).
Research support is still accumulating. Enough
outcome studies have been conducted to conclude
that strength-based approaches to change are more
than just promising. Our even-handed approach is
that attention to both strengths and weaknesses is
critical and no useful purpose is served by regarding these as mutually exclusive goals.
No one will go through life without challenges and
setbacks, but to the degree that young people have
more life satisfaction, greater character strengths,
and better social support, they will experience few-
er psychological or physical problems in the wake
of difficulties (e.g., Cobb, 1976; Park, 2004a, 2004b).
Franklin D. Roosevelt said "We cannot always build
the future for our youth, but we can build our youth
for the future." We need to continue our efforts to
refine measures and to use empirical findings to understand the structure of character, its development,
effective interventions, and the processes by which
strengths of character give rise to healthy behavior.
All young people want to do well and live in happy
and fulfilling ways. These goals are fundamental
human desires and rights. No matter how they act
and what they say, there are no children or youth
who truly do not desire to do well at school, relationships, home, and society. But more often than
not, young people do not know how to find happiness and meaning in the right place and in the
right way. Perhaps identifying character strengths
is where we can start. Everyone has strengths.
These strengths need to be recognized, celebrated,
strengthened, and used. More parents, teachers,
professionals, and policy makers need to recognize
and celebrate good character among young people.
We dream of the day when we will see bumper stickers proclaiming: "I am the proud parent of a child
who is curious, kind, and grateful."
Nansook Park, PhD, is an associate professor in the
department ofpsychology at the Univcristy of Michigan,
Ann Arbor. Email her at nspark@umich.edu
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Social ¡earning theory. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Baumrind, D. (1998)- Reflections on character and competence. In A. Colby,J.James, Sc D. Hart (Eds.), Competence and character through life (pp. 1-28). Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Park, N. (2004a). Character strengths and positive youth
development. The Annals of the American Academy of
PoUticul and Social Science, 591,4O-S4Park, N. (2004b). The role of subiective well-being in positive youth development. Tiie Annuls of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 591,25-39.
Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005), Assessment of character
strengths among youth: The Values in Action Inventory of Character Strengths for Youth. In K. Moore
St L. l.ippman (Eds.), Conceptualizing and measuring
indicators ofpositive development: What do children need
to flourish? (pp. 13-24). New York: Kluwer Academic/
Plenum Publishers.
Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2006). Moral competence and character strengths among adolescents: The development
and validation of the Values in Action Inventory of
Strengths for Youth. Journai of Adolescence, 29,891-910.
Park, N. & Peterson, C. (2008a). Positive psychology and character strengths: Its application for strength-based school
counseling. Professional School Counseling, 12,85-92.
Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2008b). I he cultivation of character strengths. In M. Ferrari & G. Potworowski (Eds.),
Teaching for wisdom (pp. 57-75)- Mahwah, NJ: Eribaum.
Park, N., Peterson, C , & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004).
Strengths of character and wellbeing. journal of Social
and Clinical Psychoiogy, 23, 603-619.
Peterson, C. (2006). A primer in positive psychology. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Peterson, C , Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Greater
strengths of character and recovery from illness. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1,17-26.
Peterson, C , & Seiigman, M. E. P. (2004). Character
strengths and virtues: A handbooii and classification.
New York: Oxford University Press/Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Sprafkin, J. N., Liebert, R. M., & Poulos, R. W. (1975). Effects
of a prosocial televised example on children's helping.
Journal of Expérimentai Child Psychology, 20,119-126.
Botvin, G. J., Baker, E., Dusenbury, L., Botvin, E. M.,
& Diaz, T. (1995). Long-term follow-up results of a
randomized drug abuse prevention trial in a white
middle-class population. Journal of the American Medical Association, 27;^, iioó-Tri2.
Scales, P. C , Benson, P. L., Leffert, N., & Blyth, D. A. (2000).
Contributions of developmental assets to the prediction of thriving among adolescents. Appiied Developmental Science, 4, 27-46.
Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 38, 300-314.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive
psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist,
55.5-14-
Colby, A., & Damon, W. (1992). Some do care: Contemporary
lives of moral commitment. New York: Free Press.
Cowen, E. L. (1998). Changing concepts of prevention in
mental health, joumul of Mental Health, 7, 451-461.
Maudsley, H. (1898). Responsibility in mental disease. New
York: Appleton and Company.
Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005).
Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of
interventions. A«)('nV(/fi Psyr/iü/tgísí, 60,410-421.
U'eissberg, R. P., & Greenberg, M. T. (1997). School and
community competence-enhancement and prevention programs. In W. Damon (Ed.), Handhook of child
psychoiogy (pp. 877-954). New York: Wiley.
summer 2009 volume 18, number 2 I 47