Peterson The alternative Gallup model is even

Peterson and his colleagues (Peterson & Park, 2006;
Peterson & Seligman, 2004) aimed to explore moral goodness or good
character, and proposed the character strengths model. This model identifies 24
character strengths (e.g., curiosity, bravery, kindness, leadership,
self-regulation, gratitude) that can be assigned to one of six higher-order
virtues, namely (1) wisdom and knowledge, (2) courage, (3) humanity, (4)
justice, (5) temperance, and (6) transcendence. The alternative Gallup model is
even more complex. This model identifies 34 talents that refer to a person’s
natural and persisting patterns in thinking, feeling, and behaving, and can be
developed into strengths by adding knowledge and skills to these innate talents
(Hodges & Clifton, 2004). In this model, strength refers to “the ability to
provide consistent, near-perfect performance in a given activity” (Clifton
& Harter, 2003, p. 111). Asplund, Lopez, Hodges, and Harter (2007) showed
that the psychometric quality of the Gallop instrument is limited since some
scales show low reliabilities, and the dimensions show considerable overlap. Yet
another strengths model defines personal strengths more broadly as “the
characteristics of a person that allow them to perform well or at their
personal best” (Wood, Linley, Maltby, Kashdan, & Hurling, 2011, p. 15). Rather
than promoting a restrictive list of predefined strengths, this definition
gives individuals the freedom to interpret any characteristic that helps them
to perform well as a personal strength (Wood et al., 2011). This brief overview
shows that strengths researchers diverge in how broadly (e.g., Wood et al.,
2011) or narrowly (e.g., Peterson & Seligman, 2004) they define strengths. Whereas
some scholars argue that certain strengths are more beneficial for well-being
and performance than others (Harzer & Ruch, 2014; Park et al., 2004), other
scholars argue that using one’s best characteristics—no matter whether they are
physical, intellectual, emotional, and so forth—invariably leads to increased
well-being and performance (Wood et al., 2011).

Peterson and his colleagues (Peterson & Park, 2006;
Peterson & Seligman, 2004) aimed to explore moral goodness or good
character, and proposed the character strengths model. This model identifies 24
character strengths (e.g., curiosity, bravery, kindness, leadership,
self-regulation, gratitude) that can be assigned to one of six higher-order
virtues, namely (1) wisdom and knowledge, (2) courage, (3) humanity, (4)
justice, (5) temperance, and (6) transcendence. The alternative Gallup model is
even more complex. This model identifies 34 talents that refer to a person’s
natural and persisting patterns in thinking, feeling, and behaving, and can be
developed into strengths by adding knowledge and skills to these innate talents
(Hodges & Clifton, 2004). In this model, strength refers to “the ability to
provide consistent, near-perfect performance in a given activity” (Clifton
& Harter, 2003, p. 111). Asplund, Lopez, Hodges, and Harter (2007) showed
that the psychometric quality of the Gallop instrument is limited since some
scales show low reliabilities, and the dimensions show considerable overlap. Yet
another strengths model defines personal strengths more broadly as “the
characteristics of a person that allow them to perform well or at their
personal best” (Wood, Linley, Maltby, Kashdan, & Hurling, 2011, p. 15). Rather
than promoting a restrictive list of predefined strengths, this definition
gives individuals the freedom to interpret any characteristic that helps them
to perform well as a personal strength (Wood et al., 2011). This brief overview
shows that strengths researchers diverge in how broadly (e.g., Wood et al.,
2011) or narrowly (e.g., Peterson & Seligman, 2004) they define strengths. Whereas
some scholars argue that certain strengths are more beneficial for well-being
and performance than others (Harzer & Ruch, 2014; Park et al., 2004), other
scholars argue that using one’s best characteristics—no matter whether they are
physical, intellectual, emotional, and so forth—invariably leads to increased
well-being and performance (Wood et al., 2011).

x

Hi!
I'm Mary!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out