Professional Documents
Culture Documents
To cite this article: Nansook Park , Christopher Peterson & Martin E. P. Seligman (2006)
Character strengths in fifty-four nations and the fifty US states, The Journal of Positive Psychology,
1:3, 118-129, DOI: 10.1080/17439760600619567
Abstract
In a web-based study of 117,676 adults from 54 nations and all 50 US states, we investigated the relative prevalence of
24 different strengths of character. The most commonly-endorsed strengths in the USA were kindness, fairness, honesty,
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 07:23 26 November 2017
gratitude, and judgment, and the lesser strengths included prudence, modesty, and self-regulation. The profile of character
strengths in the USA converged with profiles based on respondents from each of the other nations. Except for religiousness,
comparisons within the US sample showed no differences as a function of state or geographical region. Our results may
reveal something about universal human nature and/or the character requirements minimally needed for a viable society.
After all there is but one race—humanity. Regardless of the battlefield, participants in the
cultural war make judgments about their own
Moore (1900)
character and those of their opponents. One’s own
side in this conflict is of course good, and the
opposing side is bad. But whatever the evaluation,
Introduction the other side is regarded as morally different. To
judge from best-selling books in the USA, for
Good character is essential for individuals and example, conservatives see liberals as permissive
societies to thrive. After detours through the narcis- hedonists who are intent on plunging the country
sism of the 1970s, the materialism of the 1980s, and into ‘‘evil’’ (Hannity, 2004), whereas liberals see
the apathy of the 1990s, people in the USA today conservatives as narrow-minded bigots who are
believe that character indeed is important. However, ‘‘lying liars’’ (Franken, 2003). This name-calling is
according to national polls, the contemporary USA echoed across international divides as well. We hear
is facing a character crisis on many fronts, from the US leaders characterize the country’s opponents as
playground to the classroom to sports to entertain- cowards who hate freedom, whereas these same US
ment to politics (Public Agenda, 1999). The details leaders are branded by their opponents as satanic
of this crisis seem to depend on the observer. warmongers.
Political pundits speak about a cultural war being Another point of view holds that we are neither
waged in the world today, referring to a clash as polarized nor as morally dissimilar as polemics
between traditional (conservative and/or religious) suggest (Fiorina, Abrams, & Pope, 2005). Instead, it
and contemporary (liberal and/or secular) values. is the leaders and pundits who have become increas-
Within the USA, the cultural war is framed in terms ingly extreme in their words and deeds. What about
of the competing beliefs of those who live in the red the facts of the matter? Do geopolitical distinctions
(Republican) versus blue (Democratic) states that (i.e., red versus blue states, USA versus Europe
entered public awareness in the aftermath of the versus other regions) cleave people at the level of
2000 US presidential election (e.g., Greenberg, basic character strengths, as many commentators
2004; White, 2003). Within the larger world, the have argued, or is there an essential set of virtues
cultural war is variously depicted as involving US shared by most people in most places?
versus European sensibilities or Judeo-Christian Psychology’s interest in strengths of character has
versus Islamic value systems (e.g., Adams, 2003; been rekindled by positive psychology, and we see
Pells, 1997; Qureshi & Sells, 1993). growing research literatures devoted to a variety of
Correspondence: Christopher Peterson, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, 525 East University, Ann
Arbor, MI 48109 1109, USA. Tel: 7347646567. E-mail: chrispet@umich.edu
ISSN 1743-9760 print/ISSN 1743-9779 online/06/030118–12 ß 2006 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/17439760600619567
Character strengths 119
1. Wisdom and knowledge: cognitive strengths that entail the acquisition and use of knowledge.
. creativity: thinking of novel and productive ways to do things
. curiosity: taking an interest in all of ongoing experience
. judgment: thinking things through and examining them from all sides
. love of learning: mastering new skills, topics, and bodies of knowledge
. perspective: being able to provide wise counsel to others
2. Courage: emotional strengths that involve the exercise of will to accomplish goals in the face of opposition, external or internal.
. honesty: speaking the truth and presenting oneself in a genuine way
. bravery: not shrinking from threat, challenge, difficulty, or pain
. persistence: finishing what one starts
. zest: approaching life with excitement and energy
3. Humanity: interpersonal strengths that involve ‘‘tending and befriending’’ others.
. kindness: doing favors and good deeds for others
. love: valuing close relations with others
. social intelligence: being aware of the motives and feelings of self and others
4. Justice: civic strengths that underlie healthy community life.
. fairness: treating all people the same according to notions of fairness and justice
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 07:23 26 November 2017
positive traits (McCullough & Snyder, 2000). valued, which means that comparisons across
For the past several years, guided by the perspective strengths are not confounded by a global response
of positive psychology, we have been involved in set of social desirability. We can score our measures
a project that attempts to identify ubiquitously- ipsatively, which allow comparisons within the
acknowledged strengths of character and ways of individual among greater and lesser strengths. We
measuring them (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). We can also score them absolutely, and we can therefore
have become concerned with how each of the rank order them within a nation or state.
strengths is ranked in different societies. Our project The present paper describes what we have learned
has several notable features. about character strengths and their geographical
First, we approached good character as a family of distribution. Which strengths were most prevalent
positive traits, each of which exists in degrees. Our in different regions of the USA and which were least
classification includes 24 different strengths of prevalent was determined. The profiles of character
chaacter classified under six core virtues and makes strengths in other nations was examined, those
possible nuanced descriptions (Table I). physically and/or culturally close to the USA as
Second, we arrived at this family of character well as those more distant.
strengths by identifying core virtues recognized Our own examination of widely influential
across world cultures and throughout history. religious and philosophical traditions found that
Strengths of character that are arguably culture- certain core virtues were widely valued
bound were excluded, and conclusions of some (Dahlsgaard, Peterson, & Seligman, 2005). Within
generality can potentially be drawn. these traditions, there was near universal acceptance
Third, we devised measures of character strengths of the virtues of wisdom, courage, humanity, justice,
that have demonstrable reliability and promising temperance, and transcendence. In focus groups
validity (Park & Peterson, 2005, in press; Peterson, with the nonliterate Maasai (in Western Kenya) and
Park, & Seligman, 2005, 2006). These measures ask Inughuit (in Northern Greenland), Biswas-Diener
individuals to endorse character strengths as more (in press) confirmed that instances of these same
versus less descriptive of their own thoughts, feelings, core virtues were recognized and esteemed. A
and actions. All of the strengths are ubiquitously non-arbitrary, empirically-grounded classification of
120 N. Park et al.
ubiquitously-recognized character strengths thus mental health center.’’ In their search for general
seems possible (Bennett, 1993; Comte-Sponville, principles and basic processes, investigators seem to
2001; MacIntyre, 1984; Rozin, 2003). regard their samples not simply as convenient but
These studies establish that certain virtues and ultimately as interchangeable.
strengths are widely recognized, but this is a different The purpose of this study was to determine which
issue than which of these character strengths are components of character are most and least com-
relatively common or relatively rare in terms of a monly endorsed and to see whether this pattern is
respondent’s self-description. One perspective posits different or similar across geographical and cultural
a pervasive human nature, shown in a handful of contexts.
common values and virtues displayed by most people
in most societies because these dispositions are
needed for a group to survive and thrive (Bok, Method
1995; Schwartz, 1994). This perspective suggests Research participants
that not only will a set of strengths be ubiquitously
recognized, but that their rank order of prevalence The sample consisted of all adult respondents who
completed the Values in Action Inventory of
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 07:23 26 November 2017
Weighted
Nation US US UK CA AU NZ NL
N 83576 83576 11125 9504 5977 1491 1481
with weighted US profile – 0.94 0.84 0.91 0.86 0.84 0.81
with US profile 0.94 – 0.94 0.99 0.97 0.96 0.92
kindness 1 (3.99) 5 (3.96) 5 (3.82) 5 (3.97) 5 (3.93) 5 (3.90) 6 (3.74)
fairness 2 (3.98) 1 (4.00) 2 (3.92) 1 (4.03) 1 (4.03) 3 (3.98) 3 (3.84)
honesty 3 (3.98) 4 (3.97) 6 (3.77) 4 (3.98) 6 (3.91) 6 (3.90) 5 (3.77)
gratitude 4 (3.94) 6 (3.96) 14 (3.59) 7 (3.89) 8 (3.81) 10 (3.77) 14 (3.50)
judgment 5 (3.91) 2 (3.99) 1 (3.94) 2 (4.01) 2 (4.03) 2 (4.00) 2 (3.88)
love 6 (3.87) 7 (3.91) 7 (3.71) 8 (3.86) 7 (3.83) 7 (3.82) 6 (3.74)
humor 7 (3.87) 9 (3.82) 11 (3.64) 12 (3.79) 14 (3.71) 14 (3.68) 12 (3.60)
curiosity 8 (3.86) 3 (3.99) 3 (3.90) 3 (3.99) 3 (4.03) 1 (4.01) 1 (3.92)
beauty 9 (3.76) 10 (3.82) 9 (3.67) 9 (3.85) 9 (3.81) 8 (3.81) 10 (3.65)
creativity 10 (3.75) 11 (3.77) 8 (3.69) 11 (3.80) 10 (3.79) 9 (3.78) 8 (3.70)
perspective 11 (3.74) 12 (3.77) 13 (3.61) 10 (3.81) 12 (3.76) 11 (3.73) 11 (3.63)
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 07:23 26 November 2017
Weighted
Nation FR IN FI HK CH AT IT
N 156 135 132 115 110 107 100
with weighted US profile 0.79 0.76 0.79 0.86 0.81 0.81 0.77
with US profile 0.90 0.84 0.90 0.95 0.92 0.93 0.90
kindness 5 (3.88) 8 (3.97) 5 (3.79) 7 (3.75) 6 (3.83) 6 (3.92) 6 (3.87)
fairness 3 (3.94) 1 (4.11) 1 (3.91) 5 (3.78) 2 (4.01) 1 (4.10) 2 (4.04)
honesty 8 (3.76) 2 (4.06) 7 (3.76) 2 (3.81) 4 (3.90) 5 (3.97) 8 (3.82)
gratitude 11 (3.68) 6 (4.03) 16 (3.53) 10 (3.66) 7 (3.83) 14 (3.70) 10 (3.76)
judgment 6 (3.86) 4 (4.04) 2 (3.86) 1 (3.84) 3 (3.94) 4 (4.02) 4 (3.98)
love 9 (3.75) 14 (3.86) 6 (3.78) 6 (3.76) 5 (3.88) 7 (3.85) 11 (3.72)
humor 13 (3.57) 16 (3.79) 11 (3.70) 13 (3.61) 12 (3.75) 13 (3.73) 13 (3.65)
curiosity 2 (4.05) 3 (4.04) 3 (3.85) 3 (3.80) 1 (4.11) 3 (4.04) 3 (4.02)
beauty 4 (3.90) 7 (4.00) 13 (3.62) 8 (3.68) 15 (3.73) 8 (3.84) 5 (3.94)
creativity 7 (3.78) 11 (3.96) 8 (3.74) 16 (3.54) 11 (3.77) 10 (3.82) 7 (3.84)
perspective 15 (3.54) 9 (3.97) 9 (3.74) 9 (3.67) 13 (3.74) 11 (3.82) 12 (3.66)
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 07:23 26 November 2017
Weighted
Nation IL KY HR PH GR DK MY
N 60 57 56 55 53 52 49
with weighted US profile 0.80 0.80 0.76 0.71 0.87 0.69 0.73
with US profile 0.93 0.92 0.87 0.84 0.93 0.82 0.84
kindness 7 (3.86) 5 (4.00) 6 (3.86) 14 (3.85) 3 (3.90) 9 (3.79) 8 (3.68)
fairness 2 (3.96) 4 (4.00) 4 (3.90) 2 (4.09) 1 (3.99) 6 (3.81) 1 (3.92)
honesty 9 (3.79) 7 (3.93) 8 (3.77) 7 (3.95) 8 (3.82) 7 (3.81) 4 (3.86)
gratitude 10 (3.75) 8 (3.90) 15 (3.59) 5 (4.02) 9 (3.81) 12 (3.72) 9 (3.68)
judgment 4 (3.95) 2 (4.06) 2 (3.97) 1 (4.10) 2 (3.91) 4 (3.94) 2 (3.90)
love 5 (3.95) 10 (3.82) 13 (3.64) 8 (3.92) 7 (3.86) 5 (3.87) 12 (3.59)
humor 14 (3.66) 14 (3.75) 11 (3.69) 17 (3.75) 10 (3.68) 13 (3.71) 14 (3.54)
curiosity 1 (4.04) 1 (4.07) 3 (3.97) 4 (4.06) 6 (3.86) 1 (4.16) 5 (3.80)
beauty 8 (3.82) 9 (3.88) 7 (3.85) 6 (4.01) 4 (3.89) 14 (3.70) 7 (3.69)
creativity 6 (3.88) 6 (3.95) 5 (3.88) 12 (3.88) 11 (3.67) 2 (4.04) 6 (3.72)
perspective 11 (3.73) 11 (3.79) 9 (3.75) 9 (3.92) 14 (3.60) 8 (3.80) 13 (3.58)
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 07:23 26 November 2017
Weighted
Nation CF TR CL TW IS NG VU
N 32 27 25 24 24 24 23
with weighted US profile 0.85 0.70 0.72 0.72 0.83 0.80 0.65
with US profile 0.93 0.80 0.83 0.84 0.88 0.81 0.73
kindness 7 (3.82) 4 (3.97) 9 (3.96) 9 (3.50) 6 (3.82) 4 (4.01) 12 (3.64)
fairness 2 (4.01) 8 (3.90) 3 (4.15) 7 (3.58) 1 (4.03) 1 (4.15) 11 (3.65)
honesty 5 (3.88) 2 (4.02) 4 (4.06) 8 (3.54) 5 (3.84) 2 (4.09) 3 (3.82)
gratitude 9 (3.78) 14 (3.79) 11 (3.89) 5 (3.62) 4 (3.84) 14 (3.78) 14 (3.61)
judgment 1 (4.06) 3 (4.00) 1 (4.21) 4 (3.69) 3 (3.90) 3 (4.03) 6 (3.71)
love 8 (3.81) 7 (3.92) 16 (3.83) 6 (3.59) 2 (4.03) 6 (3.94) 8 (3.67)
humor 11 (3.74) 16 (3.70) 14 (3.86) 12 (3.40) 15 (3.52) 20 (3.62) 15 (3.61)
curiosity 3 (3.97) 5 (3.94) 5 (4.06) 3 (3.73) 8 (3.80) 8 (3.87) 2 (3.83)
beauty 15 (3.66) 11 (3.83) 7 (3.98) 2 (3.78) 7 (3.81) 7 (3.87) 7 (3.69)
creativity 5 (3.88) 6 (3.93) 6 (4.02) 11 (3.45) 19 (3.40) 10 (3.87) 1 (3.89)
perspective 10 (3.76) 9 (3.86) 10 (3.95) 10 (3.48) 13 (3.63) 9 (3.87) 9 (3.67)
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 07:23 26 November 2017
Classification (total 240 items). Details concerning relatively lower scores for curiosity and for love of
the reliability and validity of the VIA-IS are presented learning in the weighted sample, because these two
elsewhere (Peterson, Park, & Seligman, 2005; character strengths are the ones most highly corre-
Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Briefly: (a) reliability, lated with education (r s ¼ 0.19 and 0.27,
all scales have good reliabilities ( > 0.70); (b) respectively).
stability, test–retest correlations for all scales over Higher (weighted) strength scores were found for
a 4-month period are substantial and in almost all kindness, fairness, honesty, gratitude, judgment,
cases approach their internal consistencies love, and humor, and lower scores were found for
(r s ffi 0.70); (c) validity, self-nomination of strengths strengths of temperance: prudence, modesty, and
correlate substantially with the matching scale scores especially self-regulation. How unique is this partic-
(r s > 0.5); and (d) validity, ratings by friends or ular rank-order profile when compared to other
family members of a respondent’s top strengths nations? We computed profiles of strengths, from top
correlate moderately with the matching scale scores (¼ 1) to bottom (¼ 24), for the 53 other nations
for most of the 24 strengths (r s ffi 0.3). in our sample, and then compared these to the US
profile, both weighted and unweighted, again using
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 07:23 26 November 2017
order of character strengths was highly similar across eclipsing minor regional differences in religiousness.
the 50 states, as shown by the coefficients among In contrast to the frequently expressed idea that
the rank orderings of strengths for the 50 states. a culture war is being waged in the world today, our
All exceeded 0.70, and most were above 0.90 results suggest that we are all on the same side, at
(all p < 0.001). least as far as moral self-description goes. People
We took a closer look at strength scores across everywhere see themselves as possessing the same
states in a series of one-way ANOVAs with state as the interpersonal strengths yet relatively lacking the same
independent variable and each of the 24 strengths strengths of temperance.
in turn as the dependent variable. In each case, we Our results may reveal something about pervasive
found statistically significant differences ( p < 0.001). human nature. The consistently highest strengths,
Considering the very large sample size, these results from nation to nation and from region to region
are not surprising. However, effect sizes were within the USA, correspond to what Bok (1995)
uniformly very small (median square ¼ 0.007). identified as the universal values minimally necessary
The only effect size greater than 0.01 was for for a viable society: (a) positive duties of mutual care
religiousness ( square ¼ 0.018). Slightly higher and reciprocity; (b) negative injunctions against
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 07:23 26 November 2017
scores for religiousness were found for states in the deceit and betrayal; and (c) norms for fairness and
southern USA, whereas slightly lower scores were procedural justice in cases of conflict regarding
found for states in the northeastern and western USA. positive duties and/or negative injunctions.
When we grouped states into larger geographical The character strengths of kindness, love, and
regions (Zelinsky, 1992) and repeated these analyses, gratitude embody positive duties; the strength
the largest effect size was again for religiousness but of hon esty enables negative injunctions; and the
still extremely small ( square ¼ 0.011). Respondents strengths of judgment and fairness underlie norms
from Southern, Midwestern, and Rocky Mountain for evenhandedness and procedural justice.
states had somewhat higher scores than those from The entries in the VIA classification were
New England, Middle Atlantic, and Pacific states. intentionally tilted toward ubiquitously recognized
Red state (Republican in 2000) versus blue state strengths. The present patterns confirm our intu-
(Democratic in 2000) comparisons revealed differ- itions, but they go beyond our initial supposition that
ences (again, extremely small) only for religiousness these strengths are widely acknowledged to show that
( square ¼ 0.010). Red state respondents scored they are rank ordered to similar degrees within the
somewhat higher on religiousness than did blue state USA and around the world. Although this is the first
respondents.4 study of its kind to provide insights about strengths of
We looked at the longitude (north–south) and character across all states of USA and dozens of
latitude (east–west) correlates of the different countries around the world, there are several possible
strengths for respondents from the 48 states in the limitations to be considered.
continental USA by assigning average values for each One obvious limitation is our use of Internet
state corresponding to the geographical balancing- samples. Although increasingly common in psycho-
point for that state. The largest correlation was logical research, samples obtained from the Internet
r ¼ 0.06, between religiousness and longitude, may have problems with generalizability. However, a
meaning, again, that respondents from more study by Gosling, Vazire, Srivastava, and John (2004)
southern states scored somewhat higher than did found that Internet methods were as reliable and
respondents from more northern states. We repeated valid as more traditional strategies of gathering data,
the longitude analyses by partialling out latitude and and furthermore that Internet samples were usually
the latitude analyses by partialling out longitude. more diverse. Considering that over 70% of the
We also looked at the longitude–latitude interaction US population uses the Internet (Lebo, 2003), we
as a predictor of each character strength. No new believe that our findings may generalize at least as
conclusions were suggested. well as those from studies using typical psychology
subject pool samples, which are necessarily drawn
from the smaller subset (<50%) of the US population
Discussion
that has ever attended college.
For the USA as a whole, there are greater and lesser Researchers today accept that the magnitude of
strengths of character. The most commonly self correlation coefficients has little intuitive meaning,
described strengths are, in order, kindness, fairness, although discussion has usually focused on correla-
honesty, gratitude, and judgment, and the lowest in tions that ‘‘seem’’ small but are really not (Meyer
order from the bottom are prudence, modesty, and et al., 2001). Are we committing a different sort of
self-regulation. The US profile converged with those error by regarding the coefficients reported here as
of 53 other nations in our sample. Rank order apparently more substantial than they are (cf. Ozer &
profiles also converged across the 50 US states, Gjerde, 1989)? We believe not. In a study of ipsative
Character strengths 127
(within-subject) stability over time of Big Five one’s family, tribe, religion, state, or nation (Singer,
profiles, Robins, Fraley, Roberts, and Trzesniewski 1981, 1993). What would then be found, if our
(2001) concluded on the basis of rank-order results are valid, is a common humanity.
correlations uniformly smaller than the ones we
found that there was ‘‘considerable’’ continuity.
Nevertheless, our conclusion that nation profiles Acknowledgements
are similar does not mean that individual people
across (or even within) nations are interchangeable We thank Patty Newbold and Kai Schnabel Cortina
with respect to their strengths. For context, consider for faciliating the research reported here.
these analyses that focused on the USA and nine
other nations chosen randomly from our sample
(Argentina, Bahamas, Cape Verde, Cayman Islands, Notes
Chile, Greece, Malaysia, New Zealand, and
Sweden). From each of these 10 nations, we chose 1. Among the scattered exceptions are studies that
randomly 10 respondents. Then we computed the compare IQ scores across US regions (Kaufman
& Doppelt, 1976), investigations of suicide and
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 07:23 26 November 2017
for more of the variance in scores (partial Lester, D. (1986). Suicide and homicide rates: Their relationship
square ¼ 0.083) than did the strengths by country to latitude and longitude and to the weather. Suicide and
Life-Threatening Behavior, 16, 356–359.
interaction (partial square ¼ 0.005). Because MacIntyre, A. C. (1984). After virtue: A study in moral theory
we used ipsative scores, there was no effect of (2nd ed). In After virtue: A study in moral theory 2nd ed Notre
country per se (partial square ¼ 0.000). Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
4. In case the reader needs to be reminded, the 2000 Matthews, M. D., Eid, J., Kelly, D. R., Bailey, J. K. S., &
red–blue classification of the USA overlaps Peterson, C. (2006). Character strengths and virtues of
developing military leaders: An international comparison.
with the geographical regions already examined, Military Psychology, (in press).
although not perfectly. New England, Middle McCullough, M. E., & Snyder, C. R. (2000). Classical
Atlantic, and Pacific States were blue (except source of human strength: Revisiting an old home and
for New Hampshire and Alaska), Southern and building a new one. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
Rocky Mountain states were red (except for New 19, 1–10.
Meyer, G. J., Finn, S. E., Eyde, L. D., Kay, G. G., Moreland,
Mexico), whereas Middle Western states were K. I., Dies, R. R., et al. (2001). Psychological testing and
mixed, with those bordering the Great Lakes psychological assessment: A review of evidence and issues.
more likely to be blue. American Psychologist, 56, 128–165.
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 07:23 26 November 2017
Shimai, S., Otake, K., Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. Torrey, E. F., & Bowler, A. (1990). Geographical distribution of
(2006). Convergence of character strengths in American and insanity in America: Evidence for an urban factor. Schizophrenia
Japanese young adults. Journal of Happiness Studies, (in press). Bulletin, 16, 591–604.
Singer, P. (1981). The expanding circle: Ethics and sociobiology. White, J. K. (2003). The values divide. New York: Chatham
Oxford: Clarendon Press. House.
Singer, P. (1993). How ought we to live? Ethics in an age of Zelinsky, W. (1992). The cultural geography of the United States
self-interest. New York: Oxford University Press. (Rev. ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 07:23 26 November 2017