The VIA Taxonomy Meeting Minutes
Glasbern Resort, Fogelsville, PA
16-17 October, 2000
Participants: Dale Blyth, Ph.D.; Jack D. Burke, Jr., M.D., M.P.H.; Gabrielle A. Carlson, M.D.; Reginald Clark, Ph.D.; Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi, Ph.D.; Katherine K. Dahlsgaard, M.A.; Lucy Davidson, M.D., Ed.S.; Ed Diener, Ph.D.; Thaddeus Ferber; Barbara L. Fredrickson, Ph.D.; Derek M. Isaacowitz, M.A.; Robert Kendell, Ph.D.; Donna Mayerson, Ph.D., M.Ed.; Neal Mayerson, Ph.D.; Richard McCarty, Ph.D.; Peter Nathan, Ph.D.; Heather Johnston Nicholson, Ph.D.; Christopher Peterson, Ph.D.; Mark Rosenberg, M.D., M.P.P.; Peter Schulman; David Seligman, M.S.; Martin E.P. Seligman, Ph.D.; Peter Stevens, Ph.D.; Philip Stone, Ph.D.; George E. Vaillant, M.D.; Ellen Winner, Ph.D. (in absentia); Nicole Yohalem.
Recording secretary: Jennifer M Ostovich. M.A.
Summary
The goal of the Glasbern meeting was to further develop the VIA Taxonomy of Strengths and Virtues. The Taxonomy was envisioned as a theory-free list of characteristics that could empirically be shown to contribute to a positive life, and further, that could be developed in children and adolescents in collaboration with Youth Development programs. The pros and cons of the Taxonomy were discussed, and skepticism was expressed that such a taxonomy could possibly be theory-free. Several different organizations of the characteristics emerged over the course of the meeting, ending with an organization based on the Youth Development field's 5 C's: Competence, Confidence, Connection, Contribution were named as outcome measures, and Character became a new umbrella term for the strengths and virtues. The next step in the development of the Taxonomy will be measurement of the strengths and virtues, and empirical examination of the relationships among the strengths and virtues, the four outcome measures, and enabling factors.
Goals
The meeting opened with Dr. Seligman giving a brief history of Positive Psychology. He explained that psychology has acquired a great deal of knowledge about treating the negative end of the spectrum of human existence (e.g. bringing people from -8 to -3), but has not paid adequate attention to the positive end (e.g. bringing people from 0 to +5). Positive Psychology aims to address this discrepancy. Dr. Seligman then described the Four Pillars of Positive Psychology (Positive Subjective Experience, Positive Traits, Positive Institutions, and the Taxonomy). He represented the VIA Taxonomy as the backbone of Positive Psychology: once the Taxonomy is developed, each characteristic, and its relationships with enabling factors and positive outcomes (fulfillments) will be studied in depth.
The broad goals of the VIA Taxonomy of Strengths and Virtues are to identify characteristics associated with the "good life"; to develop valid and reliable measures of these characteristics; and to apply these measures and accompanying empirical research to Youth Development programs.
Concerns
One major stumbling block in our endeavor was the suggestion that the taxonomy might become merely a reflection of the biases (cultural and theoretical) of the researchers involved in its development, rather than being a theory-free list of strengths and virtues. The majority of the attendees proclaimed their desire that the list of strengths and virtues be theory-free and valid across cultures. However, both Dr. Stevens and Dr. Kendell cautioned that taxonomies are essentially arbitrary (even in the seemingly more concrete world of biology) and context-laden, and cannot possibly be atheoretical.
Another concern was that, despite efforts to present the taxonomy as nonexclusive and non-exhaustive, other researchers, believing the taxonomy to be closed to new ideas, might be loath to contribute to or suggest changes to the taxonomy. Dr. Csikszentmihalyi suggested that we leave the specific content of the taxonomy undefined for now, and look instead for bigger categories of strengths and virtues. This way, we avoid the problem of appearing to close the taxonomy off to other researchers. By using general categories instead of specific strengths and virtues, we will encourage other researchers to attempt to fill in the categories.
A "First Pass" at the Taxonomy: 21 Strengths and Virtues
On the first afternoon of the meeting, Dr. Peterson presented his and Dr. Seligman's (Peterson & Seligman, 2000) first attempt at a taxonomy of human strengths and virtues. Dr. Peterson discussed several criteria that he, Dr. Seligman, and their colleagues used in selecting the strengths and virtues. First, there was a linguistic criterion that a strength should be usable as a noun, an adjective, and an adverb (e.g. "I ought to be patient"/"I ought to show patience"/"I ought to answer questions patiently"). A strength or virtue should also be trait-like - that is, reliable and stable across time and situation. It should contribute to the various fulfillments comprising the good life, and it should be valued across most cultural groups. The opposite of a strength or virtue should not also be a strength or virtue (e.g. is the opposite of flexibility inflexibility, or is it steadfastness?). A strength or virtue should be valued in its own right, and should be celebrated when present (although not necessarily mourned when absent). Dr. Peterson went on to differentiate strengths and virtues from talents and abilities, from the enabling conditions that allow us to develop the strengths and virtues most easily (e.g. genetics and socio-economic status), and from the fulfillments that are the result of these strengths and virtues. Dr. Peterson then described five clusters of strengths: Strengths of Cognition; Strengths of Emotion; Strengths of Will; Relational and Civic Virtues; and Strengths of Coherence. This was followed by the list of strengths and virtues, as follows (note that some of the strengths/virtues appear in more than one cluster):
Strengths of Cognition:
§ curiosity/interest
§ love of learning/knowledge
§ rationality/judgment
§ originality/ingenuity
§ personal intelligence/emotional intelligence/social intelligence/psychological-mindedness
§ appreciation of beauty and excellence/awe/wonder/gratitude
§ hope/optimism/future-mindedness
§ wisdom/prudence
§ spirituality/sense of purpose/faith/religiousness
Strengths of Emotion:
§ personal intelligence/emotional intelligence/social intelligence/psychological-mindedness
§ appreciation of beauty and excellence/awe/wonder/gratitude
§ hope/optimism/future-mindedness
§ love of life/zest
§ courage/integrity
§ humor/playfulness
§ capacity to love and be loved
§ kindness/generosity/care/nurturance
§ citizenship/duty/loyalty/teamwork
§ balance/temperance/integration
§ self-control/self-regulation
§ wisdom/prudence
§ spirituality/sense of purpose/faith/religiousness
Strengths of Will:
§ love of life/zest
§ courage/integrity
§ kindness/generosity/care/nurturance
§ citizenship/duty/loyalty/teamwork
§ industry/perseverance
§ honesty/authenticity
§ balance/temperance/integration
§ self-control/self-regulation
§ wisdom/prudence
§ spirituality/sense of purpose/faith/religiousness
Relational and Civic Virtues:
§ humor/playfulness
§ capacity to love and be loved
§ kindness/generosity/care/nurturance
§ citizenship/duty/loyalty/teamwork
§ humane leadership
§ justice/fairness/tolerance
§ honesty/authenticity
§ balance/temperance/integration
§ wisdom/prudence
§ spirituality/sense of purpose/faith/religiousness
Strengths of Coherence:
§ honesty/authenticity
§ balance/temperance/integration
§ self-control/self-regulation
§ wisdom/prudence
§ spirituality/sense of purpose/faith/religiousness
After presenting the list of 21 strengths and virtues, Dr. Peterson discussed the different ways in which they might be measured, and also the potential difficulties that we might encounter in our attempts to measure them. For example, kindness is tonic (stable across time and place), but courage is phasic (unstable, situation-dependent). Thus, whereas kindness might be measured in the usual self-report manner, courage would have to be measured using a tool suited to its phasic nature, for example, critical incident methodology (e.g. ask participants to imagine how they would act in a crisis situation).
The group also discussed whether there might be "signature strengths" - that perhaps having a good life depended more on the ability to find a niche in which one's best strength(s) could best be used than on fully developing each of the strengths/virtues in the VIA Taxonomy.
Finally, Drs Davidson and Diener (among others) emphasized the need to test these 21 strengths and virtues empirically.
Assessment
Several assessment issues were raised over the course of the Glasbern meeting.
As previously mentioned, some of the proposed strengths and virtues are tonic (i.e. consistent across time and place), whereas some are phasic (i.e. inconsistent, dependent on special situations, ), and assessments of these strengths and virtues must take this difference into account.
Drs Seligman and Rosenberg stressed the importance of researching the physiological correlates of the various strengths and virtues (e.g. through blood pressure changes, galvanic skin response, and heart rate measures, and also through fMRI and PET studies). Identifying these physiological correlates might allow us to place the strengths and virtues within an evolutionary psychology framework.
Dr. Carlson and others stressed the importance of creating measures especially for children, rather than only for adults (see section on children, below, for more detail).
Dr. Stone stressed the importance of identifying lower-order concepts to aid in the assessment of higher-order strengths, such as wisdom. He suggested that we break down diffuse concepts such as wisdom into small, measurable components, such as (in the case of wisdom) critical thinking. This would allow for more accurate assessment of the more complex constructs on the list.
Buss and Craik's Act-Frequency approach was discussed as one method for measuring the strengths and virtues; so too was Diener's on-line act-frequency methodology (the experimenter beeps participants during the day at random intervals, and has them fill out palm-pilot questionnaires related to the strength(s)/virtue(s) and fulfillments of interest).
Dr. Diener lead an in-depth discussion on the pros and cons of several methods he uses to assess subjective well-being (SWB). Self-report measures, interview biography, and memory reports, he reminded us, are subject to retrospective memory bias. Informant reports, on the other hand, lack convergent validity with other types of measures, unless the participant's spouse is used as the informant, or five or more reports from sources other than the participant's spouse are used. Biological measures are useful, and can be taken in a laboratory setting under controlled conditions (e.g. people who are in a good mood show less eye-blink startle than do people in a bad mood; facial EMG measures can be taken while participants talk about their lives and loved ones). Another laboratory measure is situational challenge (e.g. extraverts show more positive reactivity to pleasant slides after having viewed disturbing slides than do introverts). Dr. Deiner stressed the importance for the VIA Taxonomy of using a multi-dimensional assessment methodology.
Successful Aging: Strengths and Virtues in Old Age
Once we have defined and are able to measure the strengths and virtues, we will be free to concentrate on empirical research aimed at assessing their relevance to the "good life", and their interactions with enabling conditions. Dr. Vaillant and Mr. Isaacowitz, working with the Harvard Grant Sample, have already begun to do work of this type. In this section, I will describe their contributions to our understanding of how the strengths and virtues might contribute to successful aging.
Dr. Vaillant outlined several factors ("protective factors") that predicted successful aging (good physical health and SWB at age 80) in the Harvard sample. Particularly important for good physical health at age 80 were good health before age 50, and no alcohol abuse or heavy smoking. The important factors for SWB were somewhat different: use of mature defenses (e.g. sublimation, looking for the silver lining, humor, and altruism) and a warm marriage were the two most important predictors of SWB at age 80. Dr. Vaillant claimed that the mature defenses were in fact virtues, and explained that mature defenses accounted for more of the variance in SWB at age 80 than did enabling factors such as parental age of death, terrible childhoods, and a family history of depression. Thus, Dr. Vaillant argued, factors under our personal control (strengths and virtues) have a huge impact on physical and mental health at age 80; their development in youth is vital. Dr. Vaillant further stated that the strength most clearly associated with SWB at age 80 was capacity to love and be loved - Dr. Vaillant argued that this capacity should be viewed as a master strength. He also argued that several of the taxa had little to do with successful aging: these were courage, originality, and spirituality (with the caveat that courage is phasic, and thus not well measured, and that spirituality/religion tend to be higher in those who are depressed than in those who are not depressed).
Derek Isaacowitz then described his work (also with members of the Harvard Grant Sample) on the original 17 strengths and virtues (developed at the Grand Cayman meeting, February, 1999) using the Wellsprings Questionnaire. Mr. Isaacowitz found that the strengths/virtues that best correlated with positive outcomes (e.g. SWB) were love of learning, the capacity to love and be loved, and humane leadership. He also found that most of the strengths and virtues mapped onto the Big Five personality traits (neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness, and agreeableness). He suggested that in the future, factor analyses of the strengths and virtues might reveal a coherent deep structure to the VIA Taxonomy.
Children and the VIA Taxonomy
So far, little to no empirical research has addressed the utility of the VIA strengths and virtues in children. The need for studies on the applicability of the Taxonomy for children was emphasized by many of the Glasbern meeting attendees. This section includes a summary of concerns that were raised about how research of this sort might proceed, and about what this research might uncover.
Dr. Carlson discussed the pitfalls of imposing adult DSM diagnoses onto children, and warned that the same problems could result if a taxonomy based on adults were thrust haphazardly onto children. Dr. Carlson suggested that prospective studies which do not impose adult strengths and virtues downward are one answer to this problem. Restrospective studies of virtuous and/or happy people might also help, although there are problems with false or biased recall in these types of studies. Finally, Dr. Carlson argued that the strengths and virtues are almost certainly dependent upon developmental level, and this must be taken into account when applying them to children.
Dr. Winner (in absentia) discussed the differences between child prodigy (mastery of a domain) and adult genius (people who alter domains). She argued that most child prodigies do not become adult geniuses, and listed several possible reasons for this lack of continuity. Prodigies may be pushed too hard by their parents and thereby lose intrinsic motivation to perform (but there are exceptions to this rule, e.g. Yo Yo Ma). Also, prodigies may suffer from emotional problems and thus drop out of their field of interest. Another potential pitfall is that the prodigy may not be able to remake him- or herself, and therefore may be forced to "retire" (e.g. a child who paints like Picasso is considered a prodigy, but is no longer interesting as an adult if s/he continues to paint like Picasso). Some prodigies who suffer from this inability to remake the self do not drop out but instead become experts (e.g. child violin prodigies become first chair in a world-class orchestra rather than world-class soloists). Thus far, we have no way of predicting who will drop out versus who will "settle" for being an expert. Finally, environment is important: the cultural and family environments must foster the talent of the prodigy (although there are exceptions to this rule - e.g. geniuses often had stressful family lives as children). The VIA Taxonomy might help us to better understand which individuals will make the leap from child prodigy to adult genius, and conversely, studying child prodigies might help us develop a better taxonomy of strengths and virtues by helping us to discover which strengths/virtues best predict later adult genius and which kinds of experiences (enabling conditions?) maximize the potential of prodigies to become geniuses.
Dr. Blyth, Dr. Clark, Dr. Nicholson and Mr. Ferber all stressed the importance of enabling factors and their interaction with the strengths and virtues in the VIA Taxonomy. Mr. Ferber speculated about the content of the strengths and virtues across the lifespan: are strengths and virtues different for adults and children? are there developmental critical periods for the strengths and virtues? are there different versions of the strengths and virtues throughout the lifespan? are certain strengths and virtues more important at age 5 than they are at age 45?
Dr. Blyth argued that our research questions should change depending on the age-groups we are studying: we should focus on enabling conditions when researching the role of the strengths and virtues in youth; for adults, however, the focus should shift to how the possession of various strengths and virtues relates to various positive outcomes.
Dr. Blyth further differentiated between creating a taxonomy that is conceptually eloquent, and creating one that has high utility. He argued that the Youth Development field requires the latter more than the former. The taxonomy must be concrete enough that people can relate to it and use it - people must believe that the virtues and strengths have a positive impact on life, and also that they can be encouraged in young people. Dr. Rosenberg added that prospective and retrospective studies of people who grew up without enabling conditions would be important in this venture: what does it mean, in terms of life happiness, to grow up without enabling conditions? are the strengths and virtues systematically different for people high and low in enabling conditions?
Although Dr. Vaillant's work suggests that enabling conditions in childhood are not important by age 80, representatives of the Youth Development community warned that we should not take this as evidence that a lack of enabling conditions is not important at various other times throughout the lifespan.
Theoretical Frameworks for the VIA Taxonomy
(a) Some Useful Frameworks:
Despite a stated desire to keep the taxonomy theory-free, several different views of how the taxonomy might be organized emerged as the meeting progressed. In this section, I describe some frameworks that helped lead the group to a new conceptualization of how the strengths and virtues might be framed (see next section for this new conceptualization).
(i) Peterson and Seligman's Five Categories: Drs Peterson and Seligman argued that the 21 strengths and virtues could be divided into the following five overlapping categories: strengths of cognition, strengths of emotion, strengths of conation, strengths of coherence, and civic strengths/virtues.
(ii) Prom Queens, Outcasts, and New Kids: Katherine Dahslgaard argued for a different categorization of the strengths and virtues, based on historical continuity and contemporary relevance. She described three sets of strengths/virtues: Prom Queens, aka the "Big Six" (strengths that have survived the test of time from Plato to the present, and which are preserved in the VIA Taxonomy: wisdom, justice, courage, temperance, humanity, and spirituality); the Outcasts (strengths that have not survived the test of time, and have not made it into the taxonomy, e.g. cleanliness and etiquette); and the New Kids in School (strengths that historically have not appeared on lists of strengths, but will nonetheless appear in the VIA Taxonomy, e.g. humor).
The Prom Queens have shown up on lists of strengths and virtues throughout the history of philosophy. They first appear in Plato's formulation of the tripartite soul. The tripartite soul consists of reason, appetite, and a "spirited" component. Each of these divisions of the soul has a function, the exercise of which comprises a particular virtue. Thus, wisdom is the virtue exercised by reason; temperance (self-restraint) is imposed on appetite, and courage comes about when the "spirited" component confronts danger. However, these three virtues can only be exhibited when justice, Plato's master virtue, is present. In fact, for Plato, the four virtues of justice, wisdom, temperance, and courage are interdependent - if one is missing, and especially if justice is missing, then the other three cannot be fully achieved.
Ms. Dahlsgaard explained that every Western taxonomy of virtue since Plato has incorporated these four virtues in some form (even Eastern taxonomies included some variants of Plato's four virtues, e.g. Confucius included justice and wisdom/knowledge in his taxonomy). Aristotle included the four Platonic virtues in his taxonomy; St. Thomas Acquinas included them in his taxonomy (as the cardinal/moral/natural virtues), but added three theological virtues (the heavenly virtues - i.e. faith, hope, and charity). Note that in the VIA Taxonomy, Acquinas' theological virtues show up as the sixth Prom Queen, spirituality.
One difference between Eastern and Western taxonomies of virtue is that, whereas Western taxonomies ignore the concept of humanity, Eastern ones have traditionally viewed humanity as central to their taxonomies (e.g. Confucius viewed humanity/love as the most crucial virtue for the promotion of a fair working society). For that reason, humanity is included as one of the Prom Queens.
After her discussion of the Prom Queens, Ms Dahlsgaard discussed the reasons why some virtues that had been included in early taxonomies (e.g. cleanliness and politeness) were not included in the VIA Taxonomy. She categorized these strengths/virtues as the Outcasts. Cleanliness is an example of one such historically important but contemporaneously discarded virtue. Cleanliness was discarded not only because there is currently very little variance in cleanliness in the United States, but also because cleanliness is a value-laden concept, and requires various enabling factors in order to be achieved (e.g. one must be able to "afford" cleanliness). Politeness was discarded for similar reasons.
Ms Dahlsgaard ended with a discussion of the New Kids, virtues that have not historically been important, but have nonetheless been included in the VIA Taxonomy. For example, only Aristotle deemed humor (defined by him as lying somewhere between boorishness and clownishness) important enough to include in his taxonomy of strengths/virtues - neither Plato nor Acquinas nor Confucius nor Franklin included humor in their taxonomies. Humor, for the purposes of the VIA Taxonomy, will be defined as the ability to place serious matters in a non-serious frame both for oneself and for others. There is some confusion regarding whether humor is best viewed as a true strength/virtue, a defense mechanism, a talent, or an enabler of strength/virtue - nonetheless, it was agreed that having a sense of humor is an important ingredient in positive living.
(iii) Deck of Cards: Dr. Stone brought up the metaphor of a deck of cards for the taxonomy. He stressed that we do not use all of the cards in a deck for one game - each individual, and indeed each culture might play with a different subset of cards, or even with a different deck. It is the job of the taxonomy to come up with the cards, and also to come up with combinations of cards that make up winning hands (i.e. which lead to the fulfillments). Each winning hand could be conceptualized as a kind of theoretical framework for living a good life.
(iv) Strengthsfinder: In his discussion of his Gallup/Strengthsfinder research, Dr. Stone enumerated a list of 34 strengths that were derived from web-based questionnaires of work competencies. These strengths are mapped onto various jobs, and are used to help people choose careers that best suit their strengths - the job of the taxonomy, Dr. Stone argued, should be, at least in part, to teach people which types of jobs they resonate to. Having a career which best reflects a person's idiosyncratic strengths is one major way to help people achieve the good life.
(v) Primary and Secondary Strengths: Dr. Diener differentiated between primary and secondary strengths and virtues. Primary virtues, he argued, are an end in themselves: they are self-evident, and there is no need to prove that they are worthwhile. Secondary virtues, on the other hand, get us to our goals (or fulfillments), and make up the majority of the list of 21 strengths and virtues in the VIA Taxonomy as it stood at the beginning of this meeting. These secondary virtues require empirical support - they do not necessarily appear worthwhile at face value.
(vi) Positive Emotions: Dr. Fredrickson discussed the implications for the VIA Taxonomy of her research on positive emotions as strengths. Positive emotions lead to thriving because they lead to broadened Thought-Action Tendencies (mindsets). Dr. Fredrickson described how four cross-culturally valid positive emotions (joy, interest, contentment, and love) might lead to a broadened mindset. Joy, for example, arises in safe, familiar contexts in which progress is being achieved. The tendency when one feels joy is to engage in unscripted play (e.g. monkeys show joy by engaging in rough and tumble play). This play leads to broadened skills (e.g. fighting and survival skills for the monkeys, expanded theory of mind and creativity for humans) and alliances (e.g. friendships). These outcomes are durable, and can be built upon during the course of one's life.
Dr. Fredrickson calls her model the Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions. Whereas negative emotions are adaptive in the moment (e.g. fear = fight-or-flight), positive emotions are adaptive in the long-run (they help us build durable resources, and to become better versions of ourselves). The positive emotions, then, are strengths in their own right. However, they are also enabling conditions: they help us produce other strengths (e.g. joy helps us develop skills and alliances, interest helps us gain knowledge and psychological complexity, contentment, which helps us savor our lives and integrate our life circumstances in the world around us, leads to a modified sense of self and world view, and love leads to enhanced social support).
The Broaden-and-Build Theory has three important implications for the VIA Taxonomy. First, it can be used as an organizing tool. That is, the strengths and virtues can be tied to specific positive emotions. Dr. Fredrickson suggested, for example, that humor/playfulness and love of life/zest be collapsed into one category, the capacity for joy. Curiosity/interest, and love of learning/knowledge could also be collapsed into one category, the capacity for interest. Second, Dr. Fredrickson suggested that we add strengths that correspond to positive emotions that are not represented in the taxonomy as it stands: e.g. by adding a capacity for contentment/peace/serenity taxon (Dr. Fredrickson described this as an everyday version of the capacity for awe, and Dr. Rosenberg added that this could be measured by an existing scale called the Capacity of Mindfulness Scale). Third, Dr. Fredrickson suggested that we consider the capacity to self-generate positive emotions as a higher-order strength (this might subsume the strength of self-regulation).
The ensuing discussion of Dr. Fredrickson's work was overwhelmingly positive. Dr. Stone suggested that Youth Development programs could use positive emotion to help build the strengths and virtues in children (e.g. teach children the joy of generosity). Dr. Fredrickson stressed that to do so, children would have to be taught to view the various strengths and virtues as being genuinely positive. That is, children should view generosity (in Dr. Stone's example) as intrinsically positive, not as a chore. Dr. Czikszentmihalyi agreed with this point: he argued that if we want the strengths and virtues to be nurtured in young people, we must find ways to get them to enjoy doing things associated with the strengths/virtues. Enjoyment, and particularly the experience of flow, is one method for delivering the strengths and virtues to children. It is the job of educators, Dr. Csikszentmihalyi argued, to teach children to have pleasure in the "right" things.
(vii) SWB and Positive Affect: Dr. Diener discussed SWB as both an outcome and a strength/virtue. He then described and critiqued the empirical evidence for several aspects of positive affect (sociability, health, success in life, self-regulation, and judgment/thinking clearly and accurately). According to the current literature, happy people are higher on each of these aspects of positive affect than are non-happy people. Better empirical studies of these aspects of positive affect and their relationship to SWB and the good life are needed, however, before causative conclusions can be reached. Dr. Diener finished his discussion with a warning that the importance of negative affect in living a good life should not be discounted. Negative affect teaches us the things we need to know in order to have and to appreciate positive affect.
Dr. Diener's research led to a discussion of moral monsters and positive affect (e.g. are happy hit men a goal of the VIA Taxonomy?). Dr. Seligman pointed out that happy hit men could not result from a successful use of the Taxonomy: the Prom Queens (e.g. justice, temperance, wisdom, and humanity) are characteristics that moral monsters such as hit men and Hitler surely did not have. Positive Psychology is only interested in happiness that follows from virtue: as such, we questioned whether hit-men can ever truly be happy.
(b) The 5 C's: A New Direction for the VIA Taxonomy
Dr. Nicholson, in her discussion of the VIA Taxonomy and Youth Development, reminded the group of the Youth Development's 5 C's (earlier brought up by Mr. Ferber), and remarked that the strengths and virtues might map onto the 5 C's in a useful way.
Dr. Nicholson commented that, to her mind, the successful development of the VIA strengths and virtues in children relies on making sure that those children have enabling conditions in their lives. She argued that without enabling conditions, it is extremely difficult for children to develop the strengths and virtues, particularly the civic virtues. She further argued that the point of developing the strengths and virtues in children is to help them be a contribution to their community (e.g. by providing enabling conditions to other children in need). She then grouped the taxonomy as follows:
1. First, children need Connection, which are the relational virtues listed in the taxonomy (e.g. capacity to love and be loved).
2. Then, children can develop Competence (the cognitive strengths/virtues, such as curiosity and interest) and Confidence (the emotional strengths/virtues, such as perseverance, honesty, and self-regulation).
3. Third, the children can build Character ("personal" virtues).
4. Finally, the children can develop civic virtues, i.e. Contribution.
Dr. Seligman viewed the utility of the 5 C's for the VIA Taxonomy somewhat differently: he realized that four of the C's (Connection, Competence, Confidence, and Contribution) mapped onto the fulfillments quite well, and that Character is really a synonym for the characteristics that the taxonomy was created to identify.
Dr. Seligman's conceptualization follows:
The fulfillments (4 C's):
1. Connection: reverence for life; intimacy/love
2. Competence: competence; creativity; mental/physical health; satisfying work life; material sufficiency
3. Confidence: SWB; acceptance of self; mental/physical health
4. Contribution: respect of others; civic virtues; healthy community and family
Dr. Seligman hypothesized that if we can learn how to build Character, we would achieve the 4 C's. He further hypothesized that we can build character by building the 21 strengths and virtues described in his and Dr. Peterson's taxonomy. That is, character results from and interaction between the strengths and virtues and enabling/disabling conditions, and the 4 C's (the positive outcomes, or fulfillments) result from character.
Future Directions
Dr. Seligman's closing remarks best summarize both the progress made at the Glasbern meeting, and the future of the VIA Taxonomy/Categorization. They are as follows (edited for length):
"Yesterday, I thought we had moved from the first tee back to the showers. Now, by the end of the meeting, we have gone forward. I think the notion of Confidence, Competence, Connection, and Contribution [the 4 C's] is a wonderful front end: it's what kids need, it's something that Congress will hear, and it's something that funders will hear. It can be easily understood as what we are after.
"What is our conceptual underpinning? I think that the 4 C's are the fulfillments. I think that we now have to elaborate the outcomes that we want to use, based on the 4 C's. ... It doesn't force it at all to say that that is what we are after. The 21 or 34 strengths and virtues (the Gallup/Peterson combination) can be systematically put together as the 5th C, which is Character. And Character is modulated by enabling and disabling conditions. So, I see a conceptual framework that I think will work with some modification.
"The next couple of months will consist of an email group for those who are interested in conceptually integrating the 4 C's/21 strengths-virtues/34 [Gallup] themes. That will result in a bigger document than the one we have now... By January 1st or so, we'll get something out the door. ...
"Then I see 2 steps that will occupy us for a while. A measurement step, and an acceptance step.... The measurement step is to start to talk with Gallup and with David's [David Seligman, Assistant Directory of Research at Access Measurement Systems, a company that specializes in measuring outcomes of behavioral health treatments] people and other people who measure these things... to construct focus groups and develop the kinds of measures that don't exist for the Big C (the strengths and virtues that make up character), and that will result in the 4 C's.
"The other thing we have to do simultaneously is to get this accepted across the entire range of American people... That can only be done by a lot of consultation, and we'll have to think carefully about it. What's on this list that shouldn't be there, and what isn't on this list that should? Reg [Clark] has agreed to help with this endeavor. ...
"Finally, I see a theory... I learned today that learning theory made a huge mistake. It regarded negative and positive emotion as reinforcers. And that surely is true, but it's minor. The theory that I see emerging is that negative emotion is a signal that tells you that you are in a zero-sum game. It activates a set of narrowing responses. But positive emotion is a signal that says you are in a non-zero-sum game. It's a broadening, building system. I think we have the beginnings of a categorization ... we don't have a taxonomy, we have a categorization... the VIA Categorization of Strengths and Virtues. I actually think that we have a new theory of human motivation."