Received: 2 November 2020
DOI: 10.1111/aphw.12273
|
Accepted: 24 March 2021
bs_bs_banner
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Resilience in the face of interpersonal loss: The role
of character strengths
Tamar Blanchard1
|
Robert E. McGrath1
1
School of Psychology and Counseling,
Fairleigh Dickinson University, Teaneck,
NJ, USA
2
Department of Psychology, Wake Forest
University, Winston-­Salem, NC, USA
Correspondence
Robert E. McGrath, School of Psychology,
Fairleigh Dickinson University, Teaneck,
NJ 07666, USA.
Email: mcgrath@fdu.edu
Funding information
Eranda Jayawickreme was supported by a
grant from the John Templeton Foundation
(grant #60699 to Frank J. Infurna and
Eranda Jayawickreme). The opinions
expressed in this publication are those
of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the John Templeton
Foundation.
|
Eranda Jayawickreme2
Abstract
The present study assessed whether seven specific character strengths may function to promote resilience or
growth following interpersonal loss. A sample of 3710
adults, including 557 who experienced a recent interpersonal loss (defined as death of a first-­degree relative or
divorce in the previous six months), completed questionnaires at least once across three time points to evaluate the
extent to which character strengths predicted the presence
of or changes in depression and functional impairment
over a six-­month period. Exploratory analyses also assessed changes in character strengths over time after loss.
Results indicated that depression generally decreased over
time and was unrelated to loss. Further, higher scores on
the examined strengths predicted resilience, in that they
predicted consistently lower levels of depression and impairment over time, regardless of loss. Thus, the seven
examined strengths appeared to protect against depression
and impairment over time. The loss group demonstrated
higher levels of hope and gratitude across time points.
Consistent with the concept of post-­traumatic growth, results suggest that these strengths may be particularly salient when confronted with loss. Contrary to predictions
of post-­traumatic growth theory, however, there was little
change in strengths over time.
KEYWORDS
character strengths, interpersonal loss, longitudinal, resilience
© 2021 International Association of Applied Psychology
Appl Psychol Health Well-Being. 2021;00:1–18.
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/aphw
|
1
2
|
bs_bs_banner
BLANCHARD et al.
I NT RO D U C TIO N
The purpose of this paper was to examine whether character strengths function to promote successful adaptation following the experience of interpersonal loss. Interpersonal loss is associated with
substantive and potentially enduring mental health challenges. However, distinct mental health trajectories following the experience of such loss have recently been identified, with some people recovering, remaining resilient, or potentially even growing in the aftermath of loss. Additionally, character
strengths have emerged as a predictor of improved mental health and well-­being. The present study
therefore examined whether specific character strengths predict adaptive trajectories of mental health
following interpersonal loss.
Interpersonal loss and mental health
Examining the impact of interpersonal loss—­defined here as either the death of a first-­degree relative
or the experience of divorce—­on mental health is important for several reasons. First, it is a significant
risk factor for various conditions, including depression, anxiety, and post-­traumatic stress disorders
(Kendler et al., 2003; Zisook et al., 1998). Second, it is a ubiquitous feature of human life. It has been
estimated that at any time 45% of women and 15% of men over 65 are widowed (Hansson & Stroebe,
2003), and 16.6 out of every 1000 women get divorced (United States Census Bureau, 2020). A review
of 11 studies found that 22% of widows were diagnosed with major depressive disorder in the first
year after the loss of their spouse (Onrust & Cuijpers, 2006) and 6 out of 10 people with a prior history
of depression experienced a subsequent depressive episode following divorce (Sbarra et al., 2014).
Finally, about 3%–­4% of children younger than 18 years lose a parent (Christ et al., 2005). Third, the
effects of loss can be enduring. Some studies have estimated that chronic depression or grief is present
in 13% of those who experienced interpersonal loss five years earlier (Bonanno & Field, 2001).
Although interpersonal loss is a risk factor for major depression, not everyone who experiences an
interpersonal loss develops the disorder (Zisook et al., 1997). Variations in response to loss may reflect
resilience, which is defined as the ability to maintain relatively stable psychological functioning despite
exposure to events that could be highly disturbing (Mancini & Bonanno, 2009). Variation has also been
found in rates of recovery, the rate at which a person returns to normal functioning after a depressive
response. Using alternative growth mixture models, Infurna and Luthar (2016) found resilience rates of
27%–­75% of individuals who lost a spouse and recovery (i.e. demonstrating a negative response to the
loss but then returning to baseline) for 20%–­54% within 4–­5 years. However, rates of resilience can also
vary across different outcome variables. Following spousal loss, for example, stable functioning was
a common form of resilience (about 66%), whereas consistently low negative affect was less common
(19%), highlighting the need to assess multiple components of resilience (Infurna & Luthar, 2016).
Another possible trajectory following the experience of loss is post-­traumatic growth (PTG), defined as positive psychological changes that occur in response to challenging life events (Tedeschi &
Calhoun, 2004). These changes are typically reflected in five areas of functioning: improved relationships with others, finding new possibilities for one's life, an increased sense of personal strength, spiritual growth and greater appreciation of life (Jayawickreme & Blackie, 2014). Additionally, increases
in compassion, patience, tolerance, empathy, and courage have been observed after a significant loss
(Lieberman, 1996), as well as increases in thoughtfulness, decisiveness, independence, appreciation,
and confidence (Tedeschi, 1999). Such changes may occur because bereavement spurs changes in life
priorities, such as trying new activities and increased efforts to live in the moment (Lieberman, 1996).
Perhaps due to a heightened awareness of the fragility of life, bereaved individuals often try to live
CHARACTER, LOSS, AND RESILIENCE
bs_bs_banner
|
3
life “more fully” after the loss. This can include increased appreciation for life, more fulfillment and
pleasure in day-­to-­day life, and better relationships with close family and friends (Hogan et al., 1996).
In summary, it is important to identify factors that contribute to adaptive functioning following loss—­
including trajectories of resilience, recovery, and PTG.
Linking character strengths to mental health
A relatively new approach to understanding differences in grief responses is offered by the literature
on character strengths. Character strengths are positive and socially desired attributes or dispositions
that vary across people (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Ideally, character strengths consist of those
components of personality that are universally valued for their contributions to the larger social good.
One particularly influential model of character strengths is the VIA Classification of Strengths and
Virtues (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). The model was developed in consultation with over 50 experts
in the field of positive human functioning. It includes 24 character strengths and offers a comprehensive model of character that has been found to be generalizable across cultures and ages (McGrath,
2016; McGrath & Walker, 2016). The identified character strengths have been further conceptualized
as clustering together according to six virtues: transcendence, humanity, wisdom, temperance, courage, and justice (see Appendix for a list of strengths and virtues). The 24 character strengths are typically measured with the VIA Inventory of Strengths (VIA-­IS; Peterson & Seligman, 2004).
Specific character strengths have been associated with higher levels of mental health. In particular, hope, zest, love, curiosity, and gratitude are associated with higher levels of life satisfaction (e.g.
Gander et al., 2019; Martinez-­Marti & Ruch, 2014) and lower levels of depression, negative affect,
and anxiety (Israel-­Cohen et al., 2015). These five strengths have also predicted better outcomes in
the treatment of depression, such as a decrease in depression symptoms among depressed participants
who attended cognitive behavioral therapy (Huta & Hawley, 2010).
Additionally, recent research has investigated the ways in which the character strengths of hope,
zest, gratitude, curiosity, and love are particularly relevant to resilience in the face of trauma. Gratitude
(Israel-­Cohen et al., 2015), hope, zest, and love (Shoshani & Slone, 2016) helped protect against
trauma and stress, and zest was significantly related to higher levels of PTG following traumatic
experiences (Duan & Guo, 2015). Martinez-­Marti and Ruch (2017) found that character strengths
predicted resilience above demographic variables, social support, self-­esteem, life satisfaction, positive affect, self-­efficacy, and optimism. A recent longitudinal study found that all character strengths
other than the strengths of restraint (i.e. prudence, self-­regulation, humility, and fairness) predicted
increases in mental health and positive affect over the course of one month during the COVID-­19
pandemic in Spain (Martinez-­Marti et al., 2020). The authors also found that all strengths except intellectual strengths (i.e. curiosity, love of learning, judgment, creativity, perspective, and appreciation
of beauty) predicted a decrease in negative affect over the month-­long period. As demonstrated, the
five strengths of hope, gratitude, curiosity, love, and zest are most consistently and strongly associated
with well-­being and better response to trauma, making them likely predictors of adaptive responses to
interpersonal loss. We therefore focused on these in the present study.
The character strengths of perseverance and spirituality were also considered worth exploring as
potential predictors of response to trauma due to their roles in promoting grit, hardiness, and a sense
of meaning in life (Musso et al., 2019). Spirituality and perseverance were associated with happiness
(Martinez-­Marti & Ruch, 2014), with positive affect over one month of the COVID-­19 pandemic
(Martinez-­Marti et al., 2020), and with fewer psychiatric symptoms (e.g. depression, anxiety, panic,
and somatization) in a sample exposed to long periods of war and terrorism (Shoshani & Slone, 2016).
4
|
bs_bs_banner
BLANCHARD et al.
Spirituality predicted a decrease in depression among participants in cognitive behavioral therapy
(Huta & Hawley, 2010), while perseverance was also related to resilience in response to various life
stressors (Martinez-­Marti & Ruch, 2017). Other studies, however, did not find significant relationships between resilience and spirituality (e.g. Martinez-­Marti & Ruch, 2017), and neither strength
emerged as significant protective factors against stress and trauma in an early research review (Park &
Peterson, 2009). The mixed results in the literature present a need for further exploration into the role
these strengths play in buffering against traumatic stress. It is noteworthy that, other than the study by
Martinez-­Marti et al., (2020), the research assessing the effect of character strengths on response to
loss has been cross-­sectional. Further longitudinal studies are therefore needed to fully evaluate the
role of character strengths in responding to trauma and loss over time.
Research has also investigated whether trauma affects the subsequent manifestation of character
strengths. Cross-­sectional studies have demonstrated higher scores in the character strengths gratitude,
hope, kindness, leadership, love, spirituality, and teamwork subsequent to September 11 (Peterson &
Seligman, 2003) and public shootings (Schueller et al., 2014) when compared to the period prior to
those events. Similarly, individuals who had recovered from a serious physical illness demonstrated
higher levels of appreciation of beauty, bravery, curiosity, fairness, forgiveness, gratitude, humor,
kindness, love of learning, and spirituality as compared to those who had not experienced physical
illness (Peterson et al., 2006). However, Lamade et al. (2020) recently raised concerns about the use of
cross-­sectional designs to detect change in response to a traumatic event. It is also notable that this research has focused on communal rather than personal traumatic events. Further, Peterson et al., (2008)
found the number of traumas a person had experienced was positively correlated with all character
strength scores except gratitude, hope, and love, although effect sizes were quite small, with no η2-­
values > .03. They also found that all 24 strengths were related to a measure of PTG. This study was
problematic; however, in that it employed retrospective assessments (see Jayawickreme & Blackie,
2014, for a discussion of the limitations of retrospective reports).
As noted above, the existing literature examining relationships between the experience of trauma and
character strengths is limited and requires further clarification. Research to date has largely employed
retrospective designs and has examined different participants at each time point, rather than following
the same participants longitudinally. In addition, although hope, love, gratitude, curiosity, and zest are
consistently related to well-­being, research has yet to investigate the role of these strengths in buffering
the effect of interpersonal loss, a form of trauma. Further, past research has provided inconsistent findings about the relationship between resilience and the strengths of spirituality and perseverance.
THE PRESENT STUDY
The current study aimed to address these limitations through the use of a three-­wave longitudinal design, with the goal of assessing the character strengths that predicted decreased depressive symptoms
and functional impairment following an interpersonal loss (defined as either the death of a first-­degree
relative or divorce from a spouse) within the prior six months, as well as character change among
those who have experienced a recent interpersonal loss. We selected six months as an appropriate
interval based on previous research finding changes during the six months post-­loss (Bonanno et al.,
2002). Additionally, resilience was measured using two constructs, depression and functional impairment, allowing a better understanding of variations in patterns of resiliency post-­loss.
We compared the character strengths, depression levels, and impairment levels of individuals who
experienced a recent interpersonal loss and of those who did not at three time points over a six-­month
period. We tested two hypotheses using this longitudinal design:
CHARACTER, LOSS, AND RESILIENCE
bs_bs_banner
|
5
1. Those who experienced a loss would demonstrate greater changes (i.e. decreases) in depression
and functional impairment over time than those who did not experience a loss.
2. Participants with higher scores on hope, zest, gratitude, love, curiosity, spirituality, and perseverance at Time 1 would exhibit greater decreases in depression scores and impairment scores over
time, and this pattern would vary by the loss group. We expected that strength level would moderate the effect of loss on depression and impairment, such that those in the loss group with higher
scores on these strengths at Time 1 would demonstrate greater decreases in depression than those
in the loss group with lower levels of these strengths. We also expected that depression and impairment in individuals without a loss would not vary as much based on strength scores at Time 1.
In addition, exploratory analyses assessed for changes in character strengths over time in general
and among those who had experienced a loss. We specifically explored whether character strength
levels would increase following a loss experience, consistent with PTG theory.
M ET H O D
Participants
Adult participants were recruited through the website of the VIA Institute on Character (www.viach​
aract​er.org) between April and November 2018.1 The VIA website offers administration and interpretation of the VIA-­IS free of charge. Individuals are often directed to the VIA-­IS by researchers, teachers,
or coaches; however, they do not report their reasons for completing the inventory. Upon completing the VIA-­IS, individuals who indicated they resided in one of four countries (the United States,
Canada, United Kingdom, or Australia) and completed the English-­language version of the VIA-­IS
were invited to participate in a study on character strengths and loss; 5616 responded. Based on criteria
described in Procedure section, the sample was reduced to 3710 individuals between the ages of 18 and
89 (M = 43.33, SD=13.32). The majority of these participants were from the United States (n = 2586;
69.7%), with 272 (7.3%) from Canada, 224 (6.0%) from the United Kingdom, and 522 (14.1%) from
Australia. Most were female (77.8%). The sample was highly educated, with most having attended
graduate school (40.1%) or received a bachelor's degree (27.7%). Data on ethnicity were not collected.
Measures
VIA Inventory of Strengths
Participants completed the VIA-­IS (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). The original version of the VIA-­IS
consisted of 240 items, 10 items per strength. Because of concerns about length, the version administered on the site at the time of the study was a 120-­item version consisting of the five items reflecting each strength that was associated with the highest corrected item–­total correlations in an earlier
sample of 458,854 adults. Participants rate the degree to which each statement applies to them on a
scale from 1 (very much unlike me) to 5 (very much like me). All items are positively keyed. Scores
are computed by averaging across items. The VIA-­IS was administered at each of the three time points
described below in Procedure section. Cronbach's alpha at Time 1 ranged from .65 to .90 with a mean
of .78. Cronbach's alpha at Time 2 ranged from .67 to .91 with a mean of .80, and at Time 3 from .67
to .92 with a mean of .80.
6
|
bs_bs_banner
BLANCHARD et al.
Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale
The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CESD; Radloff, 1977) is a 20-­item measure
of depressive symptoms during the past week. Items are completed on a scale from 0 [Rarely or none
of the time (less than 1 day)] to 3 [All of the time (5–­7 days)]. Sample items include, “I felt lonely” and
“I had trouble keeping my mind on what I was doing.” Higher scores indicate greater endorsement
of symptoms, and scores of 16 or greater were considered evidence of depression (Lewinsohn et al.,
1997). Cronbach's alpha in the present sample equaled .93 at all three time points.
Functional impairment
Functional impairment was measured at each of the three time points using the World Health
Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (DAS; Ustun et al., 2010). The DAS consists of 12
items that assess a person's ability to carry out functional activities over the past 30 days. Items are
completed on a scale from 0 (none) to 4 (extreme or cannot do). Higher scores indicate greater difficulty carrying out daily tasks. Sample items include “In the past 30 days, how much difficulty did you
have in taking care of your household responsibilities” or in “Learning a new task.” Cronbach's alpha
in the present sample varied between .89 and .91 across the three time points.
Life events checklist
Participants completed the Life Events Checklist for DSM-­5 (LEC; Weathers et al., 2013), which is a
17-­item measure of stressful events, at Time 1. The purpose of this instrument was to explore stressful
events such as “Natural disaster” or “Sexual assault” that did not overlap with the loss experiences examined in this study, so two items that ask about a recent death (“Sudden violent death” and “Sudden
accidental death”) were removed. For each item, participants select as many of the following six
options as are applicable: Whether they personally have experienced the event, witnessed it happen
to someone else, learned about it happening to a close family member or friend, were exposed to it
as part of a job, were not sure, or it did not apply to them. Following Gray et al., (2004), scores were
based on endorsement of the first option only (personal experience), so scores could vary between 0
and 15. This questionnaire was only administered at Time 1. Coefficient alpha was .75.
Centrality of Events Scale
The Centrality of Events Scale (CES; Berntsen & Rubin, 2006) is a 20-­item measure of how central
an event is to a person's life and identity. Items are completed on a scale of 1 (totally disagree) to
5 (totally agree). Higher scores indicate that the event was more significant to the person's life. All
items are positively keyed. Sample items include “This event has become a reference point for the
way I understand myself and the world,” and “I feel that this event has become a central part of my
life story.” This instrument was only administered at Time 1 and only to participants in the loss group.
Cronbach's alpha in the present sample was α = .95.
CHARACTER, LOSS, AND RESILIENCE
bs_bs_banner
|
7
Procedure
After completing the VIA-­IS, respondents meeting the selection criteria of country and language version saw a pop-­up asking if they would be willing to participate in a study about “difficult life events.”
Individuals who clicked on the link reviewed an informed consent form describing the study. Those
who agreed to participate answered two questions about significant personal losses:
1. Has someone in your immediate family passed away in the past year? If so, please indicate
relationship below (parent, spouse, sibling, child). If yes, how many months ago (if more
than one immediate family member died in the last year, please indicate the most recent)?
2. Have you gotten divorced in the past year? If yes, how many months ago?
All participants, regardless of whether they had experienced a loss, completed the CESD, LEC,
and WHODAS. If the individual responded Yes to either loss question, they were also administered
the CES to measure the importance of the loss. VIA-­IS results were matched based on email address.
Individuals were divided into three groups based on their responses to the loss questions. Those
who reported a major loss within the six-­month period prior to participation comprised the loss group.
Those who reported no major losses in the prior year made up the no-­loss group. Those who reported
a major loss 7–­12 months prior to participation were excluded from further participation, as were individuals who did not sign the consent or complete the CESD. This reduced the sample to a group of
individuals who suffered a loss in the prior six months (N = 557) and a group of individuals who did
not suffer a loss in the prior year (N = 3153).
Of those who experienced a loss in the prior six months, 466 (83.7%) reported a death and 125
(22.4%) a divorce. Of those who reported a death, 324 (69.5%) had lost a parent, 36 (7.7%) a spouse,
62 (123.3%) a sibling, and 23 (4.9%) a child. On average, the most recent loss had occurred 3.0 months
earlier (SD = 2.0).
Participants were then presented with a second consent form that asked for their agreement to be
contacted in three (Time 2) and six months (Time 3) to complete some of the measures again. Of the
3710 participants, 1844 (49.7%) agreed to be contacted. Those who agreed were compared with those
who did not agree on 30 Time 1 variables: age, education, gender, whether they had experienced a loss
in the last six months, CESD score, DAS score, and the 24 VIA strength scores. Using a Bonferroni-­
adjusted p-­value of .002, the only significant differences were for age (consenters were 1.6 years older
on average), perseverance (consenters were .09 points lower), and love of learning (consenters were
.10 points higher).
All participants who consented were contacted via email at Times 2 and 3. At Time 2, 784 participated, and at Time 3, 691 participated. There were 469 individuals who responded at both time points.
Those who responded completed the CESD, WHODAS, and VIA-­IS again at each time point, but not
the LEC or CES. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding
author upon reasonable request.
R ES U LTS
Our first hypothesis was that participants who experienced a loss would show greater decreases in
their depression and impairment over time than those who had not experienced loss. Furthermore, it
was hypothesised that strengths of hope, zest, gratitude, love, curiosity, spirituality, and perseverance
1844
DAS
777
DAS
DAS
8.24
16.62
8.54
17.13
8.40
18.70
7.73
11.72
7.55
11.69
7.39
12.73
585
591
666
672
1,573
1,573
N
8.18
16.42
8.44
16.89
8.17
18.13
7.65
11.55
7.44
11.37
7.14
12.44
SD
M
SD
M
99
100
111
112
271
271
N
8.57
17.80
9.14
18.54
9.71
22.04
M
8.22
12.62
8.19
13.40
8.60
13.88
SD
Loss Group
363
365
387
389
872
872
N
Abbreviations: CESD, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; DAS, World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule.
4.98
11.67
4.76
10.74
3.98
7.87
M
5.41
9.58
4.99
8.45
3.96
4.37
SD
Time 1 Not Depressed
Note: This table is limited to participants who consented to the longitudinal study. N = 1844 at Time 1, 784 at Time 2, and 691 at Time 3.
691
684
CESD
Time 3
784
CESD
Time 2
1844
CESD
Time 1
N
No-­Loss Group
Entire Sample
Descriptive statistics for dependent variables at each time point
321
326
390
395
972
972
N
11.92
22.17
12.28
23.42
12.37
28.42
M
Time 1 Depressed
8.29
11.41
7.80
11.01
7.49
9.51
SD
|
TABLE 1
8
bs_bs_banner
BLANCHARD et al.
CHARACTER, LOSS, AND RESILIENCE
bs_bs_banner
|
9
in particular would moderate these findings. Table 1 provides descriptive statistics for the individuals
who consented to participate in the longitudinal piece of the study.
To test both hypotheses, mixed-­models analyses using the restricted maximum-­likelihood estimation were conducted using all respondents with required data for at least one time point who gave us
permission to contact them at Times 2 and 3 (N = 1844). For these analyses, we set the intercept as a
random-­effects factor, time as a dimensional repeated measure, loss group and depression at Time 1
as categorical predictors, and the seven strengths mentioned above as continuous predictors. Separate
analyses were conducted for each strength. Participants were divided based on depression scores at
Time 1, with scores below 16 classified as not depressed at Time 1 and scores greater than or equal
to 16 as depressed at Time 1. This additional predictor allowed for assessing changes in depression
over time.
The analysis was conducted in seven steps. Step 1 examined the main effects for time, group, and
presence of depression at Time 1. For the CESD, time and Time 1 depression were both significant
predictors. Table 1 demonstrates that depression scores declined across time periods, and Time 1 depression was associated with higher depression mean scores at all three points, suggesting that people
who were depressed at the start of the study remained more depressed over time.
Step 2 examined the two-­way interactions among time, loss group, and depression at Time 1 over
and above the main effects. The only significant effect was that between Time and Time 1 depression. Table 1 indicates that depression scores declined across measurements among those who were
depressed at Time 1, but actually increased among those who were not. This finding could reflect
regression toward the mean. Step 3 added the three-­way interaction, which was not significant.
For the DAS, Step 1 revealed a main effect for Time 1 depression, with Table 1 suggesting greater
impairment in those who were depressed at the first measurement point. Time 1 depression also significantly moderated the relationship between time and impairment, with Table 1 indicating the same
pattern found for the CESD, in that impairment scores declined across measurements among those
who were depressed at Time 1, but increased over time among participants who were not depressed
at Time 1. The three-­way interaction was again not significant. The first three steps are displayed in
Table 2.
The remaining steps incorporated the seven strengths, and results may be found in Table 3. Step 4
added the main effects for each strength to those for time, depression at Time 1, and loss group. Main
effects for six of the seven target character strengths (all but spirituality) were significant for both
depression and functional impairment. In each case, the coefficients were negative, indicating higher
strength scores predicted less dysfunction. Step 5 examined all two-­way interactions over main effects.
TABLE 2
Steps 1–­3 for longitudinal analyses of depression and functional impairment
Step 1
Step 2
T
*
Step 3
G
D
T*G
T*D
D*G
T*G*D
CESD
−0.61 (0.18)
0.95 (0.51)
17.12
(0.36)*
−0.88 (0.48)
−5.26
(0.34)*
1.91 (1.03)
−0.42 (0.97)
DAS
0.15 (0.10)
0.37 (0.39)
7.98
(0.28)*
−0.40 (0.28)
−0.71
(20)*
1.91 (0.80)
−0.61 (0.56)
Note: Cell entries include the mixed-­models coefficient (and standard error) for that effect.
Abbreviations: CESD, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; D, Time 1 depressed/not depressed; DAS, World Health
Organization Disability Assessment Schedule; G, group (loss, no-­loss); S, strength; T, time.
N = 1844.
*
p < .002.
0.13 (0.22)
0.29 (0.23)
−1.70* (0.24)
*
−2.65 (0.24)
*
Gratitude
0.16 (0.15)
0.03 (0.22)
−0.36 (0.16)
−2.21* (0.23)
Spirituality
Zest
0.07 (0.13)
−0.04 (0.13)
−0.02 (0.13)
0.15 (0.09)
0.01 (0.13)
−0.49 (0.19)
−1.12* (0.19)
−1.01* (0.19)
−1.52* (0.18)
0.01 (0.13)
−1.50* (0.18)
Gratitude
Hope
Love
Perseverance
Spirituality
0.11 (0.49)
−0.37 (0.37)
0.47 (0.45)
−0.79 (0.52)
−0.31 (0.52)
−0.07 (0.52)
0.30 (0.55)
0.64 (0.63)
0.11 (0.47)
0.75 (0.59)
−0.70 (0.66)
−0.05 (0.65)
0.52 (0.66)
0.55 (0.70)
G*S
−1.27* (0.37)
−0.27 (0.25)
−1.93* (0.36)
−0.63 (0.39)
−0.99 (0.39)
−0.70 (0.38)
−0.84 (0.43)
−0.97 (0.47)
−0.47 (0.32)
−1.16 (0.46)
−1.43 (0.49)
−1.32 (0.49)
−0.50 (0.49)
−0.17 (0.54)
D*S
0.82 (0.35)
0.40 (0.26)
0.49 (0.32)
0.33 (0.38)
0.26 (0.36)
0.90 (0.37)
0.75 (0.37)
0.73 (0.60)
0.25 (0.44)
−0.07 (0.55)
0.46 (0.65)
−0.71 (0.63)
0.06 (0.63)
0.36 (0.64)
T*G*S
Step 6
−0.12 (0.26)
−0.04 (0.17)
−0.12 (0.26)
0.30 (0.27)
−0.02 (0.27)
−0.01 (0.26)
0.07 (0.29)
−0.11 (0.45)
0.08 (0.30)
−0.31 (0.44)
0.61 (0.47)
0.13 (0.47)
0.21 (0.45)
0.61 (0.51)
T*D*S
−1.11 (1.06)
−0.58 (0.75)
0.48 (0.98)
−2.27 (1.12)
−1.51 (1.17)
−1.20 (1.11)
−0.01 (1.17)
0.24 (1.34)
0.56 (0.96)
1.25 (1.26)
−1.38 (1.40)
−0.35 (1.46)
0.79 (1.41)
0.25 (1.48)
G*D*S
0.64 (0.72)
0.47 (0.52)
0.42 (0.65)
0.26 (0.78)
0.47 (0.79)
1.00 (0.77)
1.41 (0.76)
1.28 (1.25)
−0.40 (0.90)
0.02 (1.13)
0.70 (1.35)
1.29 (1.37)
0.21 (1.34)
1.27 (1.34)
T*G*D*S
Step 7
p <.002.
*
N = 1,844.
bs_bs_banner
Abbreviations: CESD, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; D, Time 1 depressed/not depressed; DAS, World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule; G, group (loss, no-­
loss); S, strength; T, time.
Note: Cell entries include the mixed-­models coefficient (and standard error) for that effect.
Zest
0.18 (0.13)
−0.88* (0.21)
Curiosity
0.21 (0.14)
0.12 (0.22)
−1.50* (0.23)
DAS
0.21 (0.23)
−2.42 (0.24)
Love
Perseverance
Hope
0.45 (0.25)
−1.30* (0.27)
T*S
S
Curiosity
CESD
Strengths
Step 5
Step 4
Steps 4–­7 for longitudinal analyses of depression and functional impairment
|
TABLE 3
10
BLANCHARD et al.
CHARACTER, LOSS, AND RESILIENCE
FIGURE 1
impairment
bs_bs_banner
|
11
Moderating effect of depression at time 1 on the relationship between perseverance and functional
None were significant for depression. For functional impairment, perseverance and zest interacted
with Time 1 depression. To understand the significant two-­way interactions, Figures 1 and 2 provide
line graphs representing these effects. For those who were depressed at Time 1, higher levels of perseverance and zest were associated with less functional impairment than was true for non-­depressed
individuals across both groups. Step 6 examined three-­way interactions, and Step 7, the four-­way
interactions. None of these effects were significant either for depression or for functional impairment.
Exploratory analyses
We also assessed the role of the 17 other strengths in moderating the relationship between loss and
depression or functional impairment. Analyses were conducted in seven steps, identical to the steps
listed above, and we ran separate models for each strength, in all cases using an alpha level of p ≤ .002.
Both depression and functional impairment were negatively related to forgiveness, honesty, prudence,
and self-­regulation; and positively related to appreciation of beauty. Functional impairment was also
negatively related to judgment and social intelligence. None of the interactions were significant when
predicting depression, though four interactions were significant for functional impairment. Prudence
significantly moderated the effect of loss on impairment, such that the effect of loss on impairment
was stronger for those with lower levels of prudence than for those with higher levels of prudence. In
addition, prudence, self-­regulation, and social intelligence moderated the effect of Time 1 depression
on impairment, such that for those who were depressed at Time 1, higher levels of these strengths
were associated with less functional impairment. None of the three-­or four-­way interactions were
significant for the CESD or DAS.
12
|
BLANCHARD et al.
bs_bs_banner
FIGURE 2
Moderating effect of depression at time 1 on the relationship between zest and functional impairment
Second, we conducted exploratory analyses that assessed changes in character strength scores
over time to see whether there was evidence of increases in character strengths consistent with the
concept of PTG. Mixed-­models analyses were again conducted, this time with the 24 strengths as
dependent variables, setting the intercept as a random-­effects factor, and using Time (a dimensional
repeated measure), loss group (dichotomous), and depression at Time 1 (dichotomous) as fixed-­effects
predictors.
The analyses were conducted in three steps. Step 1 included the main effects for time, group, and
depression at Time 1. As demonstrated in Table 4, time significantly predicted curiosity, such that curiosity decreased over time. The loss group was a significant predictor of gratitude and hope, such that
those in the loss group reported higher scores on these strengths. Depression at Time 1 significantly
predicted 19 of the strengths examined, with greater depression scores at Time 1 predicting lower
levels of each strength.
Step 2 assessed the two-­way interactions among time, loss group, and depression at Time 1 over
and above the main effects. None of the interactions were significant. Step 3 added the three-­way
interaction for each strength. Again, none of these was significant. These findings suggest that the
experience of a loss did not appear to be related to changes in or trajectories of strengths over time
(Figure 2).
D I SC U S S IO N
The present study explored whether character strengths serve as protective factors against depression
and functional impairment following interpersonal loss. Character strengths, depression, and functional impairment were assessed at three time points, each three months apart, among individuals who
−0.01 (0.01)
0.02 (0.01)
−0.02 (0.01)
Forgiveness
Gratitude
Honesty
−0.00 (0.01)
−0.01 (0.01)
Leadership
Learning
0.01 (0.01)
Prudence
−0.02 (0.01)
−0.01 (0.01)
Teamwork
Zest
0.09 (0.05)
0.02 (0.04)
0.11 (0.07)
0.04 (0.04)
0.14 (0.05)
−0.00 (0.05)
0.00 (0.04)
0.05 (0.05)
0.03 (0.05)
0.00 (0.05)
0.05 (0.04)
0.05 (0.03)
−0.03 (0.03)
−0.03 (0.05)
0.06 (0.05)
−0.03 (0.03)
−0.01 (0.03)
0.05 (0.03)
0.00 (0.03)
−0.05 (0.03)
−0.37* (0.04)
−0.17* (0.03)
−0.31* (0.05)
−0.13* (0.03)
*
−0.63 (0.03)
0.02 (0.02)
0.02 (0.03)
−0.40* (0.04)
−0.02 (0.03)
−0.01 (0.03)
−0.50* (0.03)
−0.20* (0.03)
0.00 (0.02
−0.15* (0.03)
−0.14* (0.03)
0.02 (0.03)
−0.12* (0.03)
0.01 (0.02)
−0.02 (0.02)
−0.14* (0.03)
−0.06 (0.02)
−0.02 (0.02)
−0.08 (0.03)
0.06 (0.03)
−0.03 (0.03)
−0.63* (0.03)
0.15* (0.05)
−0.00 (0.03)
0.04 (0.02)
−0.20* (0.02)
0.05 (0.03)
0.04 (0.03)
−0.25* (0.03)
−0.02 (0.03)
−0.01 (0.02)
−0.09* (0.02)
−0.45* (0.03)
0.15 (0.05)
*
0.07 (0.05)
0.00 (0.03)
−0.38* (0.03)
0.01 (0.03)
0.01 (0.03)
−0.05 (0.03)
−0.01 (0.03)
0.01 (0.03)
−0.12* (0.03)
−0.03 (0.02)
−0.02 (0.02)
−0.03 (0.02)
−0.02 (0.02)
−0.03 (0.02)
−0.02 (0.02)
0.01 (0.02)
−0.05 (0.02)
−0.03 (0.02)
−0.03 (0.02)
0.01 (0.02)
−0.00 (0.02)
−0.02 (0.02)
−0.01 (0.02)
−0.00 (0.02)
−0.01 (0.02)
−0.03 (0.01)
−0.02 (0.02)
0.01 (0.02)
−0.01 (0.02)
−0.05 (0.02)
−0.05 (0.02)
−0.02 (0.02)
−0.02 (0.02)
T*D
|
p < .002.
−0.05 (0.06)
0.00 (0.06)
−0.12 (0.07)
−0.13 (0.05)
−0.04 (0.06)
0.05 (0.06)
−0.01 (0.05)
−0.06 (0.06)
−0.18 (0.06)
−0.03 (0.05)
0.01 (0.05)
−0.07 (0.04)
−0.02 (0.05)
−0.05 (0.05)
−0.01 (0.05)
−0.06 (0.06)
−0.05 (0.04)
−0.10 (0.06)
−0.01 (0.06)
−0.02 (0.05)
−0.14 (0.06)
−0.04 (0.05)
−0.06 (0.05)
0.00 (0.01)
T*G*D
*
N = 1844.
0.05 (0.10)
0.02 (0.08)
0.11 (0.15)
0.01 (0.09)
−0.05 (0.11)
0.02 (0.10)
−0.05 (0.08)
−0.01 (0.10)
0.12 (0.09)
0.19 (0.09)
0.02 (0.07)
0.03 (0.07)
0.00 (0.07)
0.06 (0.09)
−0.03 (0.09)
0.04 (0.09)
−0.02 (0.07)
0.10 (0.09)
−0.08 (0.09)
0.02 (0.07)
0.09 (0.09)
−0.07 (0.10)
−0.05 (0.10)
0.09 (0.10)
G*D
Step 3
bs_bs_banner
Abbreviations: Beauty, appreciation of beauty; D, Time 1 depressed/not depressed; G, group (loss, no-­loss); Learning, love of learning; T, time.
Note: Cell entries include the mixed-­models coefficient (and standard error) for that effect.
−0.02 (0.01)
0.01 (0.01)
Spirituality
Social intelligence
−0.00 (0.01)
0.01 (0.01)
Perspective
Self-­regulation
−0.02 (0.01)
Perseverance
0.02 (0.01)
−0.01 (0.01)
Kindness
Love
−0.01 (0.01)
0.01 (0.01)
Humor
Judgment
−0.00 (0.01)
Humility
0.01 (0.01)
−0.01 (0.01)
Fairness
Hope
0.03 (0.04)
0.03 (0.03)
−0.02 (0.05)
0.02 (0.01)
−0.05* (0.01)
0.01 (0.05)
0.09 (0.05)
Creativity
0.00 (0.01)
Curiosity
−0.02 (0.01)
Bravery
T*G
D
T
G
Step 2
Step 1
Longitudinal analyses of character strengths
Beauty
Strength
TABLE 4
CHARACTER, LOSS, AND RESILIENCE
13
14
|
bs_bs_banner
BLANCHARD et al.
had experienced a significant loss (death or divorce) within the past six months and those who had not
experienced a loss within the past year.
We examined two hypotheses. First, we predicted that individuals who had experienced loss would
show greater changes in depression and functional impairment over time than those who had not.
Depression and impairment scores decreased over time, a tendency that has been demonstrated by
other researchers (e.g. Stegenga et al., 2012). Our first hypothesis was not supported, however, as the
decreases in depression and impairment scores were not predicted by loss, rather by level of depression at Time 1, as would be expected based on regression toward the mean.
Second, we hypothesised that higher scores on strengths of hope, zest, gratitude, curiosity, love,
spirituality, and perseverance at Time 1 would predict greater decreases in depression and impairment over time and that this would vary by the loss group. The interactions assessed based on this
hypothesis were consistently non-­significant. Strength levels were associated with consistently lower
depression and impairment levels, but did not predict greater changes in depression or impairment.
Overall, findings support the notion that certain character strengths are related to greater resilience,
although not in the way we expected: Strengths seemed to have more to do with overall response to
loss or life stressors than recovery.
In addition, perseverance, zest, prudence, self-­regulation, and social intelligence all moderated the
effect of Time 1 depression on impairment, such that depressed individuals with higher levels of these
five strengths demonstrated less impairment than those with lower levels of these strengths. Prudence
also moderated the effect of loss on impairment: Individuals who had experienced a loss exhibited
less impairment when they had higher prudence scores. Our results highlight the role of these five
strengths in promoting functioning when depressed or after a loss, and provide support for Infurna and
Luthar’s (2016) approach of evaluating multiple components of resilience.
We also assessed changes in character strengths over time, and analyses revealed that almost all
strengths remained stable over time with the exception of curiosity, which decreased. While these
findings were inconsistent with expectations based on the concept of PTG, they suggest character
strengths remain quite stable over short intervals, a finding consistent with other recent research
(Gander et al., 2019), even in the face of adverse events. Recent research has brought into question earlier studies that suggested a relationship between trauma and changes in character strengths (Lamade
et al., 2020). Interestingly, those in the loss group demonstrated higher levels of gratitude and hope
across time points than those without a loss, which may suggest that these strengths are especially
salient when confronted with difficult life events, consistent with the concept of PTG (Jayawickreme
& Blackie, 2014; Tedeschi, 1999). Further longitudinal research with data on participants’ strengths
prior to the significant life events would be required to better understand whether and how character
strengths change in response to adverse life events.
We acknowledge a number of limitations. First, consistent with the point just made, since prospective data were not collected on participants’ character strengths, depression levels, and functioning,
the causal role of loss on observed changes is unclear, limiting the ability to draw conclusions about
the process of recovery, resilience, or change (Jayawickreme et al., 2021). The exact way in which loss
changed participants’ depression or impairment levels remains uncertain. Additionally, data about
subsequent losses after Time 1 were not collected, so it is possible that participants in the no-­loss
group experienced a loss over the course of the study, which would dilute differences between the
loss and no-­loss groups. Future studies would benefit from assessing for additional loss experiences
over the course of the study and excluding participants who experience additional loss. Second, participants were followed for six months and may have demonstrated greater changes had data been
collected over a longer time period. Additional studies that track participants over a longer period of
time would be needed to gain a clearer picture of character change.
CHARACTER, LOSS, AND RESILIENCE
bs_bs_banner
|
15
Third, as with many longitudinal studies, there was a significant amount of attrition. It is possible
that the most or the least depressed participants dropped out over the course of the study, thus skewing our results. However, the attrition rate in our study was comparable to those in prior longitudinal
studies (e.g. Bohannon, 1991; Roberts & Viechtbauer, 2006). Fourth, existing measures of character
strengths may not be effective at assessing change following adversity. As such, this study may not
have fully reflected the extent to which strengths evolve following adversity, and further research is
needed using measures that have been validated for this specific purpose. Finally, individuals who approach the VIA website are generally better-­educated than the general population, limiting this study's
generalizability to other populations. In addition, the sample was largely at risk for depression, which
may also reflect the self-­selection bias, as individuals experiencing some symptoms of depression
may be more likely to seek out advice or guidance. Our findings therefore may not be generalizable to
samples without a significant level of depressive symptoms at baseline.
Nevertheless, this was the first study to assess the impact of character strengths on depression and
impairment after a loss over time, as well as the first to evaluate character strength trajectories over
time. Our findings emphasize the clinical risk posed by interpersonal loss, and the importance of providing support to those who are confronted with loss. At the same time, results support the prevalence
of resilience, as findings suggest that curiosity, forgiveness, gratitude, honesty, hope, judgment, love,
perseverance, prudence, self-­regulation, social intelligence, and zest were associated with better mood
and functioning across times and exposure to loss. These results can inform both clinical interventions
and character strength education programs, as fostering these strengths may facilitate greater levels
of well-­being. Similarly, identifying individuals’ levels of these strengths may enable clinicians to
predict or screen for depression and intervene more quickly if necessary.
ETHICAL APPROVAL
This research was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Fairleigh Dickinson University as
proposal #PT-­2018/02-­001010.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Robert McGrath is a Senior Scientist for the VIA Institute on Character, which holds the copyright on
the VIA Inventory of Strengths, the instrument used in this study.
DATA AVAILABILIT Y STATEMENT
The data used in this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
ORCID
Tamar Blanchard https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2439-8282
Robert E. McGrath https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2589-5088
Eranda Jayawickreme https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6544-7004
NOTE
1
This study was not preregistered.
R E F E R E NC E S
Berntsen, D., & Rubin, D. C. (2006). The Centrality of Event Scale: A measure of integrating a trauma into one’s identity and its relation to post-­traumatic stress disorder symptoms. Behavioral Research and Therapy, 44, 219–­231.
16
|
bs_bs_banner
BLANCHARD et al.
Bohannon, J. R. (1991). Grief responses of spouses following the death of a child: A longitudinal study. Omega, 22,
109–­121.
Bonanno, G. A., & Field, N. P. (2001). Examining the delayed grief hypothesis across five years of bereavement.
American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 798–­806.
Bonanno, G. A., Wortman, C. B., Lehman, D. R., Tweed, R. G., Haring, M., Sonnega, J., Carr, D., & Nesse, R. M.
(2002). Resilience to loss and chronic grief: A prospective study from preloss to 18-­months postloss. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1150–­1164.
Christ, G. H., Siegel, K., & Christ, A. E. (2005). Adolescent grief: “It never really hit me until it actually happened”.
JAMA, 288, 1269–­1279.
Duan, W., & Guo, P. (2015). Association between virtues and posttraumatic growth: Preliminary evidence from a
Chinese community sample after earthquakes. Peer Journal, 3, e883.
Gander, G., Hofmann, J., Proyer, R. T., & Ruch, W. (2019). Character strengths-­Stability, change, and relationships
with well-­being changes. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 15(2), 349–­367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1148​
2-­018-­9690-­4
Gray, M. J., Litz, B. T., Hsu, J. L., & Lombardo, T. W. (2004). Psychometric properties of the Life Events Checklist.
Assessment, 11, 330–­341.
Hansson, R. O., & Stroebe, M. S. (2003). Grief, older adulthood. In T. P. Gullota & M. Bloom (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
primary prevention and health promotion (pp. 515–­521). Springer.
Hogan, N., Morse, J. M., & Tason, M. C. (1996). Toward an experiential theory of bereavement. Omega: Journal of
Death and Dying, 33, 45–­65.
Huta, V., & Hawley, L. (2010). Psychological strengths and cognitive vulnerabilities: Are they two ends of the same
continuum or do they have independent relationships with well-­being and ill-­being? Journal of Happiness Studies,
11, 71–­93.
Infurna, F. J., & Luthar, S. S. (2016). Resilience to major life stressors is not as common as thought. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 11, 175–­194.
Israel-­Cohen, Y., Uzefovsky, F., Kashy-­Rosenbaum, G., & Kaplan, O. (2015). Gratitude and PTSD symptoms among
Israeli youth exposed to missile attacks: Examining the mediation of positive and negative affect and life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10, 99–­106.
Jayawickreme, E., & Blackie, L. E. R. (2014). Posttraumatic growth as positive personality change: Evidence, controversies, and future directions. European Journal of Personality, 28, 312–­331.
Jayawickreme, E., Infurna, F. J., Alajak, K., Blackie, L. E. R., Chopik, W. J., Chung, J. M., Dorfman, A., Fleeson, W.,
Forgeard, M. J. C., Frazier, P., Furr, R. M., Grossmann, I., Heller, A. S., Laceulle, O. M., Lucas, R. E., Luhmann,
M., Luong, G., Meijer, L., McLean, K. C., … Zonneveld, R. (2021). Post-­traumatic growth as positive personality
change: challenges, opportunities, and recommendations. Journal of Personality, 89, 145–­165.
Kendler, K. S., Hettea, J. M., Butera, F., Gardner, C. O., & Prescott, C. A. (2003). Life event dimensions of loss, humiliation, entrapment, and danger in the prediction of onsets of major depression and generalized anxiety. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 60, 789–­796.
Lamade, R. V., Jayawickreme, E., Blackie, L. E. R., & McGrath, R. E. (2020). Are sequential sample designs useful for
examining post-­traumatic changes in character strengths? Journal of Positive Psychology, 15(3), 292–­299.
Lewinsohn, P. M., Seeley, J. R., Roberts, R. E., & Allen, N. B. (1997). Center for Epidemiological Studies-­Depression
Scale (CES-­D) as a screening instrument for depression among community-­residing older adults. Psychology and
Aging, 12, 277–­287.
Lieberman, M. A. (1996). Doors close, doors open: Widows, grieving, and growing. G. P. Putnam.
Mancini, A. D., & Bonanno, G. A. (2009). Predictors and parameters of resilience to loss: Toward an individual differences model. Journal of Personality, 77, 1805–­1832.
Martinez-­Marti, M.L., & 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, Art. 1253.
Martinez-­Marti, M. L., & Ruch, W. (2017). Character strengths predict resilience over and above positive affect, self-­
efficacy, optimism, social support, self-­esteem, and life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12,
110–­119.
Martinez-­Marti, M. L., Theirs, C. I., Pascual, D., & Corradi, G. (2020). Character strengths predict an increase in mental
health and subjective well-­being over a one-­month period during the COVID-­19 pandemic lockdown. Frontiers in
Psychology, 11, 584567.
CHARACTER, LOSS, AND RESILIENCE
bs_bs_banner
|
17
McGrath, R. E. (2016). Measurement invariance in translations of the VIA Inventory of Strengths. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 32, 187–­194.
McGrath, R. E., & Walker, D. I. (2016). Factor structure of character strengths in youth: Consistency across ages and
measures. Journal of Moral Education, 45, 400–­418.
Musso, M., Tatum, D., Hamer, D., Hammarlund, R., Son, L., & McMahon, P. (2019). The relationship between grit and
resilience in emergency medical service personnel. The Ochsner Journal, 19, 199–­203.
Onrust, S. A., & Cuijpers, P. (2006). Mood and anxiety disorders in widowhood: A systematic review. Aging & Mental
Health, 10, 327–­334.
Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2009). Character strengths: Research and practice. Journal of College and Character, 10,
1–­10.
Peterson, C., Park, N., Pole, N., D’Andrea, W., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2008). Strengths of character and posttraumatic
growth. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 21, 214–­217.
Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Greater strengths of character and recovery from illness. The
Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 17–­26.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2003). Character strengths before and after September 11. Psychological Science,
14, 381–­384.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A classification and handbook. Oxford
University Press/American Psychological Association.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-­D Scale: A self-­report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied
Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–­401.
Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-­level change in personality traits across the
life course: A meta-­analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1–­25.
Sbarra, D. A., Emery, R. E., Beam, C. R., & Ocker, B. L. (2014). Martial dissolution and major depression in midlife: a
propensity score analysis. Clinical Psychological Science, 2, 249–­257.
Schueller, S. M., Jayawickreme, E., Blackie, L. E. R., Forgeard, M. J. C., & Roepke, A. M. (2014). Finding character
strengths through loss: an extension of Peterson and Seligman (2003). Journal of Positive Psychology, 10, 53–­63.
Shoshani, A., & Slone, M. (2016). The resilience function of character strengths in the face of war and protracted conflict. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Art. 2006.
Stegenga, B. T., Kamphuis, M. H., King, M., Nazareth, I., & Geerlings, M. I. (2012). The natural course and outcome of major depressive disorder in primary care: The PREDICT-­NL study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric
Epidemiology, 47, 87–­95.
Tedeschi, R. G. (1999). Violence transformed: Posttraumatic growth in survivors and their societies. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 4, 319–­341.
Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence.
Psychological Inquiry, 15, 1–­18.
United States Census Bureau (2020). U.S. Marriage and Divorce Rates by State. https://www.census.gov/libra​ry/visua​
lizat​ions/inter​activ​e/marri​age-­divor​ce-­rates​-­by-­state.html
Ustun, T. B., Chatterji, S., Kostanjsek, N., Rehm, J., Kennedy, C., Epping-­Jordan, J., Saxena, S., von Korff, M., & Pull,
C. (2010). Developing the world health organization disability assessment schedule 2.0. Bulletin of the World
Health Organization, 1, 815–­823.
Weathers, F. W., Blake, D. D., Schnurr, P. P., Kaloupek, D. G., Marx, B. P., & Keane, T. M. (2013). The life events
checklist for DSM-­5 (LEC-­5). Instrument Available from the National Center for PTSD at: ww.ptsd.va.gov.
Zisook, S., Chentsova-­Dutton, Y., & Shuchter, S. R. (1998). PTSD following bereavement. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry,
10, 157–­163.
Zisook, S., Paulus, M., Shuchter, S. R., & Judd, L. L. (1997). The many faces of depression following spousal bereavement. Journal of Affective Disorders, 45, 85–­95.
How to cite this article: Blanchard T, McGrath RE, Jayawickreme E. Resilience in the face
of interpersonal loss: The role of character strengths. Appl Psychol Health Well-­Being.
2021;00:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12273
18
|
BLANCHARD et al.
bs_bs_banner
APPENDIX
The VIA Model of Strengths and Virtues
Virtues
Character strengths
Wisdom
Creativity [originality, ingenuity]
Knowledge
Curiosity [interest, novelty-­seeking, openness to experience]
judgment & open-­m indedness [critical thinking]
love of learning
Perspective [wisdom]
Courage
Bravery [valor]
Perseverance [persistence, industriousness]
Honesty [authenticity, integrity]
Zest [vitality, enthusiasm, vigor, energy]
Humanity
Capacity to Love and Be Loved
Kindness [generosity, nurturance, care, compassion, altruistic love, "niceness"]
Social intelligence [emotional intelligence, personal intelligence]
Justice
Teamwork [citizenship, social responsibility, loyalty]
Fairness
Leadership
Temperance
Forgiveness and mercy
Modesty and humility
Prudence
Self-­regulation [self-­control]
Transcendence
Appreciation of beauty and excellence [awe, wonder, elevation]
Gratitude
Hope [optimism, future-­m indedness, future orientation]
Humor [playfulness]
Religiousness and spirituality [faith, purpose]
Note: Terms in brackets are variants of the character strength according to Peterson and Seligman
(2004).