Strengths Gym Notes

Strengths Gym: Notes for exam prep

• Context and aim

  • Article: Strengths Gym: The impact of a character strengths-based intervention on the life satisfaction and well-being of adolescents
  • Published in The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2011; authors: Carmel Proctor, Eli Tsukayama, Alex M. Wood, John Maltby, Jennifer Fox Eades, & P. Alex Linley
  • Research question: Does a character strengths-based intervention (Strengths Gym) within the school curriculum improve life satisfaction and well-being among adolescents aged 12–14?
  • Design: Preliminary quasi-experimental treatment–control study; schools assigned to condition (not randomized)
  • Sample: N = 319 adolescents aged 12–14 (M = 12.98, SD = 0.50); 218 in intervention; 101 in comparison
  • Settings: Two UK secondary schools (Channel Islands and Cheshire, UK)
  • Outcome focus: Life satisfaction as the primary outcome; also positive affect (PA), negative affect (NA), and self-esteem (Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, RSE)
  • Time points: Baseline (t0) and post-test (t1)

• Key concepts and theoretical background

  • Positive psychology in schools: Increasing well-being in students can support learning and development; schools are ideal venues for well-being initiatives (Seligman et al., 2009; SEAL program; CASEL standards)
  • Definition of well-being used: Positive subjective experience and functioning; life satisfaction as cognitive appraisal; positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA) as emotional components
  • Values-In-Action (VIA) framework
  • VIA-IS: Inventory of 24 character strengths organized under six virtues; virtues are Morality-related domains valued morally (Park, Peterson, & Seligman, 2004)
  • Signature strengths: Each person has five “top” strengths (top five out of 24) that reflect identity and authenticity; using signature strengths daily linked to happiness (Seligman et al., 2005; Peterson & Seligman, 2004)
  • VIA-Youth: youth version to identify strengths in 10–17-year-olds; scores rank-ordered 1–24; helps tailor development
  • Prior evidence on interventions
  • Positive psychology exercises (gratitude, kindness, three good things, etc.) linked to increased PA, life satisfaction, and decreased NA/depression (Emmons & McCullough, 2003; Froh et al., 2008; Seligman et al., 2005)
  • In schools, programs focusing on strengths and well-being show improvements in engagement, social skills, and happiness (Seligman et al., 2009; positive education literature)
  • Rationale for a broad, school-wide strengths program
  • Developmental rationale: Strengths can be cultivated; strengths may not be fixed; exposure to all 24 VIA strengths allows self-identification and prevents early narrowing of focus
  • Pragmatics: A comprehensive, general-strengths program (not requiring full VIA-Youth administration) supports scalability and practicality in schools; shotgun approach (multiple activities) often more effective than single activities (Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009)

• The Strengths Gym program (intervention)

  • Aim: Encourage students to build, learn, and recognize strengths; develop self-identification with signature strengths; apply strengths in real-life contexts
  • Structure: Three levels aligned to UK school years (Year 7, Year 8, Year 9)
  • Core activities: Strengths Builders (two options per lesson) and a Strengths Challenge; each lesson centers on one VIA strength with a clear definition
  • Example: Strengths Builder option 1 in Year 8 booklet – “Strengths in Action Story”; option 2 – “Animal beauty contest”; and Strengths Challenge – “Look for beauty on your way to school”
  • First Strengths Builder option is consistent across levels; e.g., Year 8: Love of Beauty; Year 9: Create your own Strengths in Action Story
  • Process for students
  • At start of each level, students identify five strengths from the 24 VIA strengths listed; record them
  • Through levels, students re-evaluate their top five after learning all 24 strengths
  • Content and pedagogy
  • Books begin with “Spotting Your Strengths”; definition: strengths are your best qualities
  • Emphasizes self-identification with strengths as intrinsic rewards; aligns with the idea that all children have strengths regardless of academics
  • Highlights individual differences in strengths and the lack of generality across people
  • Implementation logistics
  • 24 lessons; teachers deliver about 50% of lessons (as observed in study) due to time constraints; rest integrated with standard curriculum
  • Materials: student booklets; teacher handouts; no formal teacher training beyond provided materials
  • Implementation setting: Channel Islands – PSHE classes; Cheshire – weekly morning tutor period
  • Duration: January 2009 term start; six-month period for implementation; end-term post-test (July 2009)
  • Practical adaptability
  • Activities can be completed solo or collaboratively; duration ranges from minutes to hour-long lessons depending on motivation
  • Focus on exploration of all 24 strengths rather than only signature strengths; intended to foster appreciation of diversity in strengths among peers

• Participants and design details

  • Ethical approval: University of Leicester Psychology Research Ethics Committee
  • Sampling and assignment: Convenience sample; two schools; classrooms assigned to experimental or comparison condition by school, not randomly
  • Demographics and allocation
  • Experimental: Year 8 (4 classes, 89 students) and Year 9 (4 classes, 110 students) in Cheshire; Channel Islands Year 8 (4 classes, 89) vs Year 9 (4 classes, 63) for logistical reasons
  • Comparison: Year 9 in Channel Islands; Year 8 and Year 9 in Cheshire as described; total n at baseline: 487 surveys
  • Participation and attrition
  • At baseline: 487 surveys administered; 146 not completed at post-test
  • Final data set for analysis: 319 students after removing 22 outliers (per Birnbaum, 2004) and handling missing data
  • Measures and outcomes at baseline and post-test
  • Life satisfaction: Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (SLSS) – 7-item, 6-point Likert response (0–5 or 1–6 depending on item); age range 8–18; reliable across ages; higher scores indicate greater life satisfaction
  • Positive and Negative Affect: PANAS – 20 items; 10 PA items, 10 NA items; 5-point Likert scale; three items amended for adolescents (Strong – Emotionally; Grouchy – Irritable; Edgy – Jittery) to aid comprehension; reliability within expected ranges (PA: 0.84–0.90; NA: 0.84–0.87)
  • Self-esteem: Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE) – 10 items; 4-point Likert scale; higher scores indicate higher self-esteem; reliability typically 0.80–0.92; test-retest around 0.82
  • Validity and reliability notes
  • SLSS: good reliability across elementary to high school; convergent validity with self-esteem (r ≈ 0.65); negative associations with anxiety, depression, loneliness, etc.
  • PANAS: established reliability and validity; small negative correlation between PA and NA
  • Measures’ adaptation and administration
  • For PANAS, three items were adapted to suit adolescents; teachers could clarify meanings if needed
  • Sample characteristics for analysis
  • Experimental condition: n = 218 (101 males, 117 females)
  • Comparison condition: n = 101 (49 males, 52 females)
  • Age: M = 12.98; SD = 0.50

• Data analysis strategy

  • Data preparation and quality control
  • Excluded 22 participants due to identifiable response patterns, inconsistent responding, or outliers (per Birnbaum, 2004)
  • Missing data handling: z-score standardization; for items with missing data, scale total = mean of completed items; reverse items re-scored
  • At least one measure complete for life satisfaction for all participants; some missing PA, NA, or self-esteem data; those with missing scores were omitted from respective analyses
  • Multilevel modeling approach
  • Rationale: students nested within classrooms; classrooms nested within schools; condition assigned at classroom level
  • Model framework: Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM)
  • Covariates in Level 1 (student level): baseline score of the outcome, age, sex
  • Covariates in Level 2 (classroom level): school, year
  • Statistical significance criterion: α = 0.05; robust standard errors used to adjust for potential misspecifications; robust SEs are recommended when high-level units are few
  • Effect size estimation
  • Primary reported effect size: r_e (effect-size correlation) derived from t statistics
  • Method for r_e: following Duckworth, Tsukayama, and May (2010)
    • Formula used: r_e = ext{sign}(t) imes rac{|t|}{
      oot{ }{ ext{df}}} ext{?}
    • Actually reported in article notes: r_e computed as the square root of [t^2/(t^2 - df)]
    • Correct general form used in notes: r_e = ext{sign}(t) imes rac{
      oot{ }rac{t^2}{t^2 - df}}
    • Clear, concise standard form as given: r_e =
      oot{ }{rac{t^2}{t^2 - df}}
    • In practice, reported reffect values in Table 2: e.g., Life Satisfaction with reffect = 0.51; PA with reffect = 0.45; NA with reffect = 0.41; RSE with reffect = 0.32
  • Outcome reporting structure (as in Table 2)
  • Life Satisfaction (SLSS): Difference (experimental vs. comparison) = 0.18; t(14) = 2.20; p = 0.045; reffect = 0.51
  • Positive Affect (PA): Difference = 0.16; t(14) = 1.86; p = 0.084; reffect = 0.45
  • Negative Affect (NA): Difference = -0.10; t(14) = -1.69; p = 0.113; reffect = 0.41
  • Rosenberg Self-Esteem (RSE): Difference = 0.07; t(14) = 1.28; p = 0.222; reffect = 0.32
  • Interpretation of model outputs
  • Life satisfaction showed a statistically significant improvement in the experimental group after accounting for baseline and covariates (p < .05)
  • PA showed a marginally significant improvement (p ≈ .084); NA and self-esteem were not statistically significant at conventional levels
  • Post-hoc checks for baseline differences: no significant baseline differences between conditions on outcomes; interactions by baseline level were non-significant
  • Power and degrees of freedom considerations
  • Degrees of freedom at the highest level were limited to the number of classrooms; thus, effective sample size for between-classroom analyses was smaller, reducing statistical power for some effects

• Main findings

  • Primary outcome: Life satisfaction increased significantly for adolescents who participated in Strengths Gym vs. those who did not, controlling for baseline life satisfaction, age, sex, school, and year
  • Reported effect: t(14) = 2.20, p = 0.045; r_e = 0.51
  • Magnitude interpretation: large enough to be considered a meaningful change in life satisfaction given the study design
  • Secondary outcomes (exploratory/partial):
  • Positive affect (PA): trend toward higher PA in the intervention group; not quite statistically significant at p < .05; t(14) = 1.86, p = 0.084; r_e = 0.45
  • Negative affect (NA): no significant difference; t(14) = -1.69, p = 0.113; r_e = 0.41
  • Self-esteem (RSE): no significant difference; t(14) = 1.28, p = 0.222; r_e = 0.32
  • Overall interpretation: Regular participation in character strengths-based activities within the school curriculum can positively influence life satisfaction in adolescents over a six-month period with a sizable observed effect on life satisfaction; PA may increase modestly; NA and self-esteem effects were not statistically significant in this preliminary study

• Discussion of findings in context

  • Alignment with broader literature: supports Seligman et al.’s (2005, 2009) findings that positive psychology interventions can enhance happiness and well-being; resonates with Broaden-and-Build Theory (Fredrickson, 2001) where positive emotions help build enduring personal resources
  • Practical implications for schools: implementing a general, strengths-based program across the curriculum can enhance life satisfaction and support well-being; a shotgun approach (multiple strengths activities) is consistent with meta-analytic findings that varied positive activities tend to be effective
  • Relationship to VIA framework: leveraging the full VIA strengths classification allows exploration of all 24 strengths; helps students identify and relate to strengths they already possess; fosters appreciation of individual differences in character

• Limitations and cautions (as discussed by authors)

  • Non-random assignment: quasi-experimental, classroom-level assignment to conditions increases risk of selection biases
  • Statistical power and degrees of freedom: effective degrees of freedom limited to number of classrooms; some effects show large estimated magnitudes but are not statistically significant due to small sample at the higher level
  • Duration and intensity: six months; authors suggest longer interventions across an entire school year could yield stronger effects
  • Measurement and method biases: reliance on self-report measures; future work could include objective outcomes (e.g., academic performance) and teacher/observer ratings; potential social desirability bias in classroom settings
  • Generalizability: two UK schools; convenience sample; results may not generalize to different educational systems or age ranges
  • Implementation fidelity: variability in how teachers delivered the program (mean 5.58 lessons, range 3–12 of 24); future work should monitor fidelity more closely and consider teacher training
  • Attrition and missing data: attrition analyzed; some differential attrition by baseline levels noted; however, analyses suggest attrition was not strongly moderated by condition

• Implications for practice and future research

  • Practical takeaways
  • A general strengths-based intervention embedded in the school curriculum can improve adolescents’ life satisfaction over a six-month period
  • A broad, multi-activity program may be more effective than single-strength interventions or non-curricular approaches
  • Self-identification with signature strengths at multiple points (beginning and after learning all strengths) is a feasible approach in classroom settings
  • Recommendations for future research
  • Randomized controlled trials with multiple schools to improve causal inference
  • Longer-term studies spanning all three levels (Year 7–Year 9) to examine incremental effects across levels
  • Larger sample sizes at the classroom level to increase statistical power for between-condition comparisons
  • Longitudinal follow-up to assess persistence of effects and long-term well-being outcomes
  • Compare effects of focusing on VIA-Youth signatures vs. broader VIA strengths; incorporate objective academic or behavioral outcomes
  • Examine program integrity: duration, intensity, and teacher training; consider an independent assessor to minimize measurement bias

• Definitions of key terms ( glossary-style )

  • VIA (Values-In-Action) strengths: A 24-item classification of universal character strengths organized under six virtues; used to assess and develop positive character in people
  • Signature strengths: The five strengths an individual identifies as most central and frequently exercised; strongly linked to authenticity and well-being
  • Life satisfaction: A cognitive, global assessment of one’s life as a whole
  • Positive affect (PA): Pleasant or activated positive emotions (e.g., interested, excited)
  • Negative affect (NA): Unpleasant or negative emotions (e.g., distressed, upset)
  • Self-esteem (RSE): An overall evaluation of one’s own worth or value
  • Strengths Builders: In-class exercises designed to help students practice a given strength
  • Strengths Challenges: Follow-up tasks designed to deepen strength use and understanding
  • Shotgun approach: A strategy of delivering multiple different activities and exercises to maximize overall well-being gains

• Formulas and statistical details (LaTeX)

  • Reported condition differences (post-test adjusted for covariates):
  • Life satisfaction: t(14) = 2.20, ext{ } p = 0.045, ext{ } ext{difference} = 0.18, ext{ } r_e = 0.51
  • Positive affect: t(14) = 1.86, ext{ } p = 0.084, ext{ } ext{difference} = 0.16, ext{ } r_e = 0.45
  • Negative affect: t(14) = -1.69, ext{ } p = 0.113, ext{ } ext{difference} = -0.10, ext{ } r_e = 0.41
  • Self-esteem: t(14) = 1.28, ext{ } p = 0.222, ext{ } ext{difference} = 0.07, ext{ } r_e = 0.32
  • Effect size computation (as per article footnote):
  • Following Duckworth, Tsukayama, & May (2010), the effect-size correlation is computed as:
    r_e = \sqrt{\frac{t^2}{t^2 - df}}
  • We note: t-values reported as t(14) in Table 2 reflect robust standard errors; p-values use robust SEs in interpretation

• Quick recap of conclusions

  • Strengths Gym can meaningfully increase life satisfaction among adolescents in a school setting over a six-month period
  • The intervention shows potential for enhancing PA modestly; NA and self-esteem were not significantly impacted in this preliminary study
  • Longitudinal, randomized, multi-site research with fidelity monitoring is needed to confirm and extend findings and to evaluate long-term well-being and academic outcomes

• References for further reading (selected from article references)

  • Seligman, M.E.P.; Steen, T.A.; Park, N.; Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410–421.
  • Seligman, M.E.P.; Ernst, R.M.; Gillham, J.; Reivich, K.; Linkins, M. (2009). Positive education: Positive psychology and classroom interventions. Oxford Review of Education, 35, 293–311.
  • Fredrickson, B.L. (2001). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226.
  • Peterson, C.; Seligman, M.E.P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A classification and handbook. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  • Park, N.; Peterson, C.; Seligman, M.E.P. (2004). Strengths of character and well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 603–619.
  • Proctor, C.; Linley, P.A.; Maltby, J. (2009, 2010, 2011). Various works on youth life satisfaction and VIA strengths (see Journal of Positive Psychology and related works).

• Notes on ethical considerations

  • Parental consent was not required as data collection occurred with voluntary participation and ensured confidentiality; students were informed participation was voluntary
  • Researchers followed university ethics approval and school cooperation; data handling complied with privacy standards described in the study

• How this ties to exam topics

  • Understand concepts of life satisfaction and subjective well-being in adolescence
  • Recognize VIA strengths framework and the idea of signature strengths
  • Be able to describe school-based intervention designs (quasi-experimental, benchmarks, and measurement strategies)
  • Interpret basic multilevel modeling results (Level 1 and Level 2 covariates; robust SEs; interpretation of t-values, p-values, and effect sizes)
  • Discuss limitations of non-randomized designs and implications for generalizability and future research