Not Only Strengths but Also the Experience of Overcoming One's Weaknesses Makes a Person Happy - Research Paper Example

Introduction Positive Psychology developed as a result of a paradigm shift from traditional clinical Psychology which was predominantly preoccupied with the analysis and treatment of mental ailments. Instead of concentrating on the negatives of the human mind, a new approach was employed that aimed at strengthening human character by developing the positive aspects and traits of the human mind. This approach came to be known as Positive Psychology. Defined by Martin Seligman and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, positive Psychology aims at achieving a scientific understanding and effective interventions that would build thriving human individuals and groups (Seligman , & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). The Values in Action (VIA) survey refers to the measurement of 24 identified values of human character to help the individual gauge personal rating of his character. The Character Strengths and Virtues (CSV) handbook was developed by psychologists to help identify and classify positive psychological traits of human beings. These values were later identified by scholar Martin Seligman as being important contributors to the happiness of individuals. He designed a questionnaire to help measure the values of Wisdom and Knowledge, Courage, Humanity, Justice, Temperance and Transcendence were picked as the six main areas of classification of the strengths that differentiate between a happy, successful person and his unhappy, unfulfilled counterpart (Peterson, C. & Seligman, M. (2004). The logic is that those who score highly on these values are more satisfied with life than those who do not. However each individual has his own signature strengths. These are the strengths they identify as being strongly expressed in their personality above all others (Seligman, 2002). The purpose of this paper is to use complete the VIA questionnaire to identify my five main signature strengths and discuss the accuracy or otherwise of the findings. To help authenticate the accuracy of the report view are sort from other persons to see if they agree with the report and feel that its findings are accurate. A conclusion is drawn on the efficacy of the VIA using this brief research. How VIA Works The Values in Action (VIA) survey is a process in which an individual can self-test his character traits by cross checking a set of 24 values against his own behavior. Each value is considered on a scale of strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree and the individual gives himself scores correspondingly on each value. What this means is that if one takes a value like valor he can give himself any score between those above, based on what he believes is the extent of his valor, and so on (Boniwell, 2006). The individual allocates values based on three questions. Is this the real me? Do I enjoy using it? Do I find it energizing and exciting? (Boniwell, 2006). Where the answer is yes for the three values then the score is high, that is strongly agree, while no for each results in a low score of strongly disagree. Generally is relative to the way the person feels about a particular strength of his character (Snyder, & Lopez, 2002). Though the 24 traits are divided into 6 categories, the VIA treats each trait or strength individually (Boniwell, 2006). The values are creativity, ingenuity, and originality; hope, optimism, and future-mindedness; social intelligence; bravery and valor; curiosity and interest in the world; gratitude; humor and playfulness; spirituality, sense of purpose and faith; appreciation of beauty and excellence; honesty, authenticity, and genuineness; perspective or wisdom; judgment, critical thinking, and open-mindedness; capacity to love and be loved; zest, enthusiasm, and energy; industry, diligence, and perseverance; leadership; caution, prudence, and discretion; fairness, equity, and justice; citizenship, teamwork, and loyalty; kindness and generosity; love of learning; forgiveness and mercy; modesty and humility; and, self-control and self-regulation. My Test Findings Following the guidelines of the VIA test given above I carried out a test and came out with the following findings : Strength Score 1. Creativity, ingenuity, and originality Strongly agree 2. Hope, optimism, and future-mindedness, Strongly agree 3. Social intelligence Agree 4. Bravery and valor Neutral 5. Curiosity and interest in the world Strongly agree 6. Gratitude Agree 7. Humor and playfulness Strongly disagree 8. Spirituality, sense of purpose, and faith Neutral 9. Appreciation of beauty and excellence Strongly disagree 10. Honesty, authenticity, and genuineness Neutral 11. Perspective or wisdom Disagree 12. Judgment, critical thinking, and open-mindedness Neutral 13. Capacity to love and be loved Neutral 14. Zest, enthusiasm, and energy Disagree 15. Industry, diligence, and perseverance Disagree 16. Leadership Disagree 17. Caution, prudence, and discretion. Strongly Agree 18. Fairness, equity, and justice Agree 19. Citizenship, teamwork, and loyalty Strongly Disagree 20. Kindness and generosity Agree 21. Love of learning. Agree 22. Forgiveness and mercy Agree 23. Modesty and humility Agree 24. Self-control and self-regulation Strongly agree Discussion From the experiment it is quite obvious that my signature strengths are creativity, hope, curiosity, caution and self-control. The control of this experiment is to allow some friends to carry out this assessment and the results are the average outcome of their findings and mine (Kashdan, 2009). The friends I chose three friends Tess, John and Elizabeth. In her assessment, Tess disagreed with me over the leadership findings gave me an overall score of strongly agree. However the other two differed with her on this count hence the overall low score. However, it was quite surprising that Tess valued my leadership ability so highly. John’s score for me was even lower overall but the biggest surprise he pulled was to strongly agree that I have in me kindness and generosity. Since the others generally agreed with this assessment, I had no option but to raise my score from neutral to agree. Elizabeth was the most generous leading me to believe that maybe her personal feelings towards me may have clouded her judgment a little bit. Her total score for me was strongly agree on 11 counts. She strongly agreed that I am kind, a good leader and wise. Though this raised my overall score on the three counts considerably, I was left wondering whether there was any objectivity in her assessment. Lack of objectivity due to emotions clouding judgment can increase the inaccuracy of any assessment (Haidt, 2005). Accuracy of the Results Taking a general overview of my results, I believe they are accurate. The accuracy of such results can only be determined by considering the extent to which they reflect ones personality (Compton, 2005). Considering that I am a rather reserved person, the assessment of my signature strengths is quite accurate. I also agree with the fact that I am a very hopeful person with a lot of optimism about a better future. Overall Assessment of My Friends The friends I chose generally agreed with the outcome of the assessment though as stated earlier they had their reservation on particular strengths over which they differed completely. My aim was to balance between views of those very close to me like Elizabeth and the distant ones like John. This kind f balance is necessary to maintain objectivity (Fredrickson et al, 2000). My overall assessment therefore is that the VIA may not be the perfect measure for happiness but it certainly is quite accurate and credible. The strengths chosen are part and parcel of what constitutes happiness in many individuals are thus a useful measure of gauging personal level of satisfaction in life (McMahon, 2006). To improve my level of satisfaction in life, I can apply one of my top strengths; creativity in a number of new ways. At the moment I have been concentrating on doing creative writing, but another area in which I feel particularly gifted is music. I have so far been ignoring this area even though it gives me immense satisfaction whenever I come up with a new song. I might just use this strength not only to entertain myself and others but also to create employment. One of the important results of improving one’s lifestyle is that others always gain from it thus improving the level of happiness of the individual who does it (Robbins, 2008). Moreover, there is a great level of satisfaction that is derived from the fact that one is the first person to do something in a new way (Gable, & Haidt, 2005). So in addition I will continue exploring new ways of using computer programs which is one of my pet passions. This in any case is what has accounted for the great strides that humanity has made in generally improving their lifestyles and technology. On the other hand according to the VIA argument, it is not just the top strengths that make a person happy. It is equally crucial to concentrate of improving the lowest strengths as well (Seligman, M. (2002). One of my lowest scores was in citizenship and teamwork. This to an extent also affects my ability to be a leader. I like carrying out tasks that I can accomplish on my own without enlisting the support of others. This is an untenable situation since there are tasks that cannot be accomplished alone (Kahneman, & Schwarz, 2003). It is therefore important for me to begin involving myself as a member and maybe later as a leader in group projects. Once this is done then I will be able improve on my role as a citizen and there could also be openings in national leadership as well. I have also resolved that it is no longer feasible to shy away from taking the initiative whenever people require someone to do so. If people do not work together then each can only achieve very little (Benard, 2004). The Downside of Top Strengths Though theoretically one has to have at least some of the strengths above to be truly happy, it is wrong to assume that they will always make one happy without any repercussions. There is a downside to all these issues which cannot be ignore by the person who is in hot pursuit of happiness (Goldberg, 2006). One of the surest ways to ruin for instance is uncontrolled kindness. Being overly generous with one’s possessions at times results in other people exploiting the individual for their own benefit to his personal detriment (Goldberg, 2006). This is a lesson I learned the hard way after my budding sales business collapsed due to bad debts. Perhaps this has contributed greatly to my low scoring in the generosity department (Goldberg, 2006). When it comes to the well being of the individual any combination of the strengths above is conducive to the well being of the individual. However, strengths such as judiciousness, wisdom, leadership and teamwork are some of the most satisfying since human happiness grows from reciprocation by others. The more the people who appreciate one’s efforts the merrier for the person (Ong, & Van Dulmen, 2006). Therefore, in general strengths which encourage participation with others are the most conducive towards happiness. My own awareness of my character strengths has helped me strive to improve on the areas in which I generally believe that I am weakest. This conscious effort to improve myself has generally resulted in my assessing situations more dispassionately; this has helped me reduce personal stress levels thus improving my level of happiness. Weaknesses of the VIA-Test The VIA test can post completely hopeless results if the person carrying out the test is biased (Carr, 2004). For instance, in my own experience described above, the scores by Elizabeth were very high compared to the others. This was highly influenced by the fact that she is the closest to me of the three participants. The results are therefore only as good as the objectivity employed by those carrying out the test (Carr, 2004). Conclusion The aim of the VIA test is enable people not only to calculate their current level of happiness but also to provoke them to improve on areas that can help make them happier. Having carried out the test above I can only conclude that it works both ways. This is because I considered myself averagely happy even before I carried out the test and the score came to about that. However, for the test to work very well, it is important to have other people score about you as honestly as possible. One way of doing that is not to identify those who do the scoring in case they may feel apprehensive later (Carr, 2004). In all, this Positive Psychology method really works. References Benard, Bonnie (2004). Resiliency: What We Have Learned. San Francisco: WestEd Boniwell, I. (2006). Positive Psychology in a Nutshell. London: Personal Well-Being Centre. Carr, A. (2004). Positive Psychology: A Science of Happiness and Human Strengths. New York: Brunner-Routledge. Compton, W. C. (2005). An Introduction to Positive Psychology. Wadsworth Publishing. Fredrickson, B. L. et al. (2000). "The undoing effect of positive emotions," Motivation and Emotion. 24 Haidt, J.(2005). The Happiness Hypothesis. New York: Basic Books. Gable, S. L., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? Review of General Psychology, 9. Goldberg, C. (2006, March 10). "Harvard's crowded course to happiness." The Boston Globe. Kahneman, D. & Schwarz, N. (2003). Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation Publications. Kashdan, T.B. (2009). Curious? Discover the Missing Ingredient to a Fulfilling Life. New York: HarperCollins. McMahon, Darrin M. (2006, July). “ Happiness: A History. Atlantic Monthly Press. Ong, A. D. & Van Dulmen, M. H.M. (2006). Oxford Handbook of Methods in Positive Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. Peterson, C. & Seligman, M. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford: OUP. Robbins, B.D (2008, Spring). “What is the good life? Positive psychology and the renaissance of humanistic psychology.’ The Humanistic Psychologist, Seligman, M. (2002). Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for Lasting Fulfillment. New York: Simon and Schuster. Seligman M. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). "Positive Psychology: An Introduction". American Psychologist 55. Snyder, C. R. & Lopez, S.J. (2002). A Handbook on Positive Psychology. Oxford: OUP. Read More