Is there anything special about using character strengths?

Today we had a journal club discussion (presented by Hayley Jach) that substantially increased my skepticism about strength-based interventions. Here are a few quick thoughts on appropriate control groups in intervention studies, and a challenge to future strength-based interventionists!

Positive psychology interventions (PPIs) are intentional activities that aim to increase your happiness*. Of the different types of PPIs, strength-based interventions have been particularly well-researched. Broadly speaking, strengths can include positive personality traits as well as things that we're good at and enjoy doing (i.e., talents). The VIA classification (used in the paper I'll discuss) focuses on (moral) personality strengths, described by this taxonomy:

Importantly, although we all have all 24 strengths to varying degrees, apparently some strengths are more special than others. Signature strengths are the 3-7 strengths that best characterise us, and Seligman and Peterson (2004) have argued that using your signature strengths is invigorating, energising, and engaging. For example, if Kindness, Gratitude, and Love of Learning are your signature strengths, you'll be happier if you have regular opportunities to do things like donating to charities, writing thank-you notes, and attending talks.

In a seminal article reporting results from various PPIs, Seligman and colleagues (2005) found that participants who were instructed to use their strengths in a new way every day reported greater happiness and depression up to 6 months later, relative to a control group who were instructed to recall early memories.

Several studies** have since used this intervention and found various positive effects, but Proyer and colleagues (2015) decided to do something a bit different. Instead of just comparing the signature strengths intervention with a control group, they also introduced a second intervention group: using your "lesser strengths" (i.e., your bottom 5/24 character strengths).

They launched a large online intervention, beginning with 1,046 participants but ending up with 375*** who completed all follow-ups to 6 months, and were included in analyses. After taking the VIA character strengths survey, participants were given their intervention instructions. Participants in the two strengths intervention conditions were given the same instructions:

“We have selected five character strengths for you. Use one of these strengths in a new and different way every day for 1 week. You can apply the strength in a new environment or when interacting with a ‘new’ person. It is up to you how you want to apply these strengths. Try to apply these strengths, regardless of whether you feel like already using this strength frequently or not.”

The difference was that participants in the signature strengths (SS) condition were assigned their top 5 strengths, whereas participants in the lesser strengths (LS) condition were assigned their bottom 5 strengths (and neither group were not told which of these conditions they were in). Participants in the "placebo control" condition were instructed to write about their early memories.

The key finding was that participants in both strengths intervention conditions reported a tiny increase in happiness (but not decreased depression) for up to 3 months****, relative to participants in the control group.

From this, Proyer and colleagues concluded:

"working on the SS as well as working on the LS, is beneficial for increasing happiness."

And sure, it's plausible that maybe signature strengths aren't that special after all, and that using your lesser strengths can increase your happiness too (because it still involves acting in a more socially-desirable, or well-adjusted way).

But, the fact that we see identical effects in both intervention conditions suggests that something placebo-ish may be going on. So, before accepting Proyer and colleagues' conclusion, I think we should take another look at the intervention instructions: 

"Use one of these strengths in a new and different way every day for 1 week. You can apply the strength in a new environment or when interacting with a ‘new’ person."

Looking at these instructions, I am totally not convinced that these results provide any evidence for the effects of using strengths per se. Instead, the instructions seem to focus on getting people engaged, doing new things in life, and hanging out with new people (i.e., acting extraverted, which we also know is associated with increased positive affect). It seems to be more of a novelty and general behavioural activation intervention than a strengths intervention. Meanwhile, the "placebo control" participants are at home, writing about their early memories. It's just not comparable.

This is a challenge to the validity of all previous strength-based intervention studies that used similar novelty-based intervention instructions without an appropriate control group (including the seminal 2005 paper). 

A much more appropriate control condition would involve instructions that go something like this:

"Do something new and different every day for 1 week. For example, you can go to a new environment or interact with a ‘new’ person. It is up to you how you want to bring more novelty into your life."

So, before I can be convinced that using your strengths (signature or lesser) has any unique effect on happiness, over and above the effects of generally making an effort to be engaged in life, I want to see a replication of Proyer and colleagues, but with a control condition where participants have similar opportunities to be engaged with new and interesting things and people in life. I'd be very curious to see the results!

--

*more formally, "to cultivate positive feelings, behaviors, or cognitions" (Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009, p. 468)

**of varying quality. do not get me started on various issues like power and representativeness of participants.

***huge huge attrition (typical of online studies). intention-to-treat analyses were not used.

****how plausible is it really is that a 1-week, one-off intervention could result in such long-lasting effects anyway? logically, it seems like sustained, long-term increases in wellbeing require similarly sustained, long-term changes in thoughts and behaviours, including habits and lifestyle choices. i'd be curious to know if this 1-week intervention motivated participants to get out there and be more engaged in life on an ongoing basis, beyond just the intervention week. that kind of information would make for a more compelling story!

Proyer, R., Gander, F., Wellenzohn, S., & Ruch, W. (2015). Strengths-based positive psychology interventions: a randomized placebo-controlled online trial on long-term effects for a signature strengths- vs. a lesser strengths-intervention Frontiers in Psychology, 06 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00456

FAQs on Acting Extraverted and Feeling Happier

One of the most well-established findings in personality psychology is that extraverts* tend to be "happier". By this I mean that individuals who are more assertive, talkative and sociable than they are passive, quiet and reserved, tend to experience more highly-activated pleasant emotions (e.g., lively, enthusiastic, excitement).

Intriguingly, acting extraverted might be as "good" as being extraverted when it comes to increasing your happiness. This has been demonstrated over and over again in the lab, using a paradigm pioneered by Dr. William Fleeson and colleagues. I've previously blogged about one of these studies, but the general procedure is that participants are randomly assigned to act, for example, talkative, assertive, and sociable, (i.e., extraverted) or passive, quiet, and reserved (i.e., introverted), or are given no instructions. They then participate in an interactive task while following these acting instructions. 

All of these studies show that participants who are instructed to act extraverted report feeling happier than participants who are instructed to act introverted. Here's the kicker: even introverts seem to enjoy acting extraverted!

People often find this somewhat surprising, so I (and other researchers in this area) get the same questions a lot. Here's an attempt to catalogue and answer some of these FAQs!

1. Are there any "costs" of acting extraverted for introverts?

It's an intuitively appealing idea that introverts might find it stressful and draining, or feel inauthentic, when asked to act "out of character". Professor Brian Little has warned that acting against one's "first nature" for prolonged periods of time will seriously tax the individual, physically and psychologically. But since we often need to enact "free traits" to get the things we want in life, Brian Little has also theorised about the need for "restorative resources" to mitigate the associated costs.

So what does the research say about the "hidden costs" objection? To date, there's actually no evidence that introverts find it distressing or overly-effortful (i.e., cognitively depleting) to act like an extravert. Paradoxically, introverts even report feeling more authentic (i.e., more like themselves) when they are acting more extraverted.

Arguably, however, this issue has not really been tested thoroughly. Each of these studies only looked at the short-term effects of brief periods of acting extraverted. So it's still an open question as to any repercussions might emerge after long-term, sustained periods of acting extraverted. In the meanwhile, it seems that occasional bursts of extraverted behaviours are unlikely to harm introverts.

2. If acting extraverted is so enjoyable, then why don't introverts act extraverted more often?

There are several reasons why introverts—people who act extraverted less often—still exist. First, there's a difference between "wanting" a reward and "liking" it. So it might be that introverts are less motivated to act extraverted, even if they usually enjoy the experience. Related to this, there's also evidence that introverts are less likely to expend effort to increase their happiness. In line with the idea that individuals differ in what emotions they prefer to feel (ideal affect), this suggests that introverts may not even want to be "happy" in the exuberant sense.

Another reason, from an affective forecasting perspective, is that we are often wrong about what will make us happy. But these predicted emotions—how we expect to feel—influence our decisions. Indeed, Dr. John Zelenski and colleagues found that introverts underestimate how enjoyable acting extraverted can be, and overestimate how self-conscious and distressed it would make them feel. Given these motivational factors, it's not too mystifying that not everyone is an extravert.

3. Does this finding only apply in cultures where extraversion is more highly valued?

To date, "acting extraverted" lab experiments have only been conducted in the U.S., Canada, and Australia. These are all "WEIRD" (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic) countries where extraverted traits are arguably more culturally valued.

However, a recent cross-cultural study sheds some light on this issue. Instead of instructing participants to act extraverted or introverted, this team of researchers just asked participants to report how extraverted they behaved each day, and how happy they felt that day, across 20 days. In all five countries—U.S., Venezuela, Philippines, China, and Japan—individuals reported feeling happier on days when they reported acting more extraverted, and the strength of this effect was similar across cultures.

So even though there hasn't yet been a lab-based study in a non-WEIRD country, this study suggests that the finding that extraverted moments are happier might generalise across cultures. Of course, this remains to be tested.

4. Should introverts act more extraverted?

In the end, these studies are descriptive: they just tell you how happy you are likely to feel if you act extraverted rather than introverted. No one is saying that there's anything wrong with being introverted, or that everyone should act extraverted, like, all the time. Not only would that be super annoying (and I'm speaking as an extravert!); it would also be inappropriate in many situations (e.g., at the library, on a meditation retreat, at a funeral).

There are also questions about whether experiencing and pursuing happiness is always a good thing, and whether you can have too much happiness. And in any case, most people—introverted or extraverted—are already pretty happy overall.

All this said, some of these researchers see a potential application of these findings. This is because so far, the research does suggest that acting extraverted could be a simple and effective way to increase your happiness, without any apparent drawbacks.

In the end, I personally see acting extraverted as just another strategy or "tool" that people might be able to use as a way to regulate their emotions, in times when they feel like doing so. I think people should be aware that it's out there, but the decision as to whether or when to use it is totally in your hands.

--

*My use of "extraversion" and "introversion" is as empirically described by the Big Five framework. Dr. Scott Barry Kaufman and Dr. Luke Smillie have both written fantastic articles describing the varying conceptualisations of "introversion" in popular culture.

The structure of this post was largely inspired by a very informative book chapter by Dr. John Zelenski, which thoughtfully addressed a series of objections about the finding that trait extraverts tend to be happier:

Zelenski, J. M., Sobocko, K., & Whelan, D. C. (2014). Introversion, solitude, and subjective well-being. In R. J. Coplan and J. C. Bowker (Eds.), The Handbook of Solitude: Psychological Perspectives on Social Isolation, Social Withdrawal, and Being Alone. (pp. 184-201). Wiley-Blackwell.

This post was also partly motivated by two examiners of my Honours thesis, who expressed curiosity about issues relating to FAQs #1, #2 and #4.

A New Explanation for Why Extraverts Are Happier

Extraversion and Happiness

One of the most robust findings in personality psychology is that people who are more extraverted also tend to feel happier. And by "happier", which I'm using as shorthand, what I really mean is "high activation positive affect", e.g., feeling excited, enthusiastic, energetic and lively. Psychologists, however, have had more difficulty explaining exactly why it is that people who are more talkative, bold and assertive experience more happiness than their more quiet, reserved and passive counterparts.

One class of structural explanations suggests that it's something that extraverts have that explains their greater happiness. Perhaps extraverts just have a higher biologically determined "set-point" or fixed level of happiness. Or maybe extraverts "get more bang for their buck" and experience a stronger positive reaction when good things happen to them.

A second class of explanations proposes a role for social processes. The social activity hypothesis suggests that since extraverts are more sociable, and social activities tend to be enjoyable, their increased quantity of social activity explains why extraverts tend to feel happier. However, a particularly strong study showed that the amount of time spent in various social situations only explained about a sixth of the relationship between extraversion and positive affect.

Studies employing a "counter-dispositional behaviour" paradigm present a further difficulty for all of these explanations. In these studies, participants are instructed to act extraverted, act introverted or given no acting instructions during a group discussion task. A consistent finding that has emerged is that participants report feeling happier after acting extraverted than after acting introverted, and that surprisingly, this applies for dispositional introverts and extraverts alike! 

These studies show that the quantity of social experience can't explain this relationship because all participants spent the same amount of time interacting. And structural explanations also can't explain why simply acting like an extravert is enough to increase one's momentary levels of happiness. This suggests that it's the extraverted behaviours - in other words, what extraverts do - that cause increased happiness.

This still doesn't tell us much about how one gets from being talkative to feeling excited, but a recently published study finally sheds some light on the processes that may be at work here.


A Social Quality Explanation

Smillie and colleagues (2015) first surveyed 225 undergraduates and showed that social wellbeing, a measure of the quality of one's social life, explained a third of the relationship between extraversion and positive affect. This effect was driven almost entirely by one dimension of social wellbeing, social contribution, a person's sense of having an influence on their social world, or having something valuable to give to society.

Since the correlational design of Study 1 could not establish causality, Smillie et al. ran a counterdispositional behaviour experiment for Study 2. In groups of 3, 81 undergraduate students completed two fun problem-solving tasks. One participant was instructed to act extraverted (i.e., bold, talkative, energetic, active, assertive, adventurous), another was asked to act introverted (i.e., reserved, quiet, lethargic, passive, compliant, unadventurous), and a third participant was given no acting instructions.

Consistent with previous research, participants who acted extraverted experienced more positive affect than participants who acted introverted, whether they were naturally more extraverted or introverted. But the key contribution of this study was in revealing that perceived contribution to discussion tasks explained 70% of the effect of acting extraverted on positive affect. In other words, participants who were acting extraverted felt happier because they felt that they contributed more to the group activities.

So, it looks like social processes do matter - but instead of the mere amount of time spent with others, it's the qualitative aspects of social experience that help to explain the relationship between extraverted behaviours and positive affect. Specifically, this study suggested that one reason why extraverts (and pseudo-extraverts) feel happier is that extraverts feel that they are contributing more strongly to their social world. A follow-up Honours thesis (not yet published) also replicated this effect and found that it extended to another mediator, social power - an individual's perception of their ability to influence others in a social context.

This is interesting - but before extrapolating further, we'll need to consider a couple of limitations. First, like all other studies using the counterdispositional behaviour paradigm, participants were university students. This means that further research is needed before it's safe to generalise that all people feel happier after acting extraverted. And it's especially important considering that the explanation for the extraversion-happiness link may vary depending on age. For example, as Smillie et al. suggest, it's plausible that social coherence, one's ability to make meaning out of social affairs, could have a stronger effect on positive affect for older adults.

A second limitation is that it's unclear whether the difference in positive affect was due to the happiness-boosting effects of acting extraverted, or the happiness-lowering effects of acting introverted. After all, it can't be much fun to be asked to be quiet, reserved and lethargic while being dominated by an extraverted participant and another participant who tends to act quite extraverted in this context anyway. Yet, there seems to be a lack of research on how acting extraverted makes other people feel ("affective presence"), compared to how it makes the extravert (or pseudo-extravert) themselves feel.

Similarly, at the Positive Psychology Interest Group Journal Club a few weeks ago, some suggested that the instructions for acting introverted were overly-negative. Maybe - but according to the dominant Big Five descriptive framework of personality, these are more-or-less the terms that describe introverted behaviours. Being introverted does not actually mean being "introspective" or "imaginative", although popular misconceptions abound regarding what introversion is.


Should Introverts Act More Extraverted?

A final few caveats on whether it's a good idea to act more extraverted. First, extraverted behaviours are most reliably linked to activated positive affect states and are unrelated to "deactivated" positive affect states (e.g., calm, relaxed, at-ease); states that some people may see as more long-lasting, valuable end-goals. 

Second, how a person feels is of course only one component of wellbeing, and this research does not say much about the effect of extraverted behaviours on, say, one's perceptions of meaning and purpose in life (although it's also worth noting that positive affect does predict an increased sense of meaning). Smillie et al. do show that extraversion predicts positive affect via one's sense of social contribution - an important aspect of wellbeing - but there is clearly plenty of scope for further research to clarify the nature of the relationship between extraversion and wellbeing more broadly construed.

Third, whereas there's been no evidence to suggest that acting extraverted incurs costs for introverts (interestingly, extraverts do seem to suffer cognitive costs after acting introverted), no research has investigated the long-term effects of counterdispositional behaviour, as it's possible that extended periods of acting extraverted could be more challenging for introverts. Brian Little has a lot more to say about the need for "restorative niches" after acting out of character.

Taken together, however, Smillie et al. contribute a valuable new perspective on why it feels good to be or act like an extravert. And despite the need for further investigation with broader samples, in everyday life, and across longer periods of time, I'm excited by the optimistic view that these studies present. It looks like happiness isn't dependent on a fixed property specific to dispositional extraverts, but is something that anyone can experience more of - and that it might be as simple as strategically choosing to act more extraverted when the situation calls for it.

--
Smillie, L., Wilt, J., Kabbani, R., Garratt, C., & Revelle, W. (2015). Quality of Social Experience Explains the Relation Between Extraversion and Positive Affect. Emotion DOI: 10.1037/emo0000047