INT’L. J. AGING AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, Vol. 57(2) 181-201, 2003
STRENGTHS AND SATISFACTION ACROSS
THE ADULT LIFESPAN*
DEREK M. ISAACOWITZ
Brandeis University
GEORGE E. VAILLANT
Brigham and Women’s Hospital
MARTIN E. P. SELIGMAN
University of Pennsylvania
ABSTRACT
Positive psychology has recently developed a classification of human
strengths (Peterson & Seligman, in press). We aimed to evaluate these
strengths by investigating the strengths and life satisfaction in three adult
samples recruited from the community (young adult, middle-aged, and older
adult), as well as in the surviving men of the Grant study of Harvard graduates.
In general, older adults had higher levels of interpersonal and self-regulatory
strengths, whereas younger adults reported higher levels of strengths related
to exploring the world. Grant study men tended to report lower strength levels
than older adults from the community. Among the young adults, only hope
significantly predicted life satisfaction, whereas among the middle-aged individuals, the capacity for loving relationships was the only predictor. Among
community-dwelling older adults, hope, citizenship, and loving relationships
all positively and uniquely predicted life satisfaction, compared with loving
relationships and appreciation of beauty in the Grant sample.
*This work was supported by grants from the Positive Psychology Network, the Max Planck
Society, and the Society for a Science of Clinical Psychology to the first author.
181
Ó 2003, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.
182
/
ISAACOWITZ, VAILLANT AND SELIGMAN
STRENGTHS AND SATISFACTION
ACROSS THE ADULT LIFESPAN
The burgeoning field of positive psychology has sought recently to identify a
measurable set of human strengths or virtues (Peterson & Seligman, in press). The
goal of such a classification is presumably the development of assessment tools for
each strength, followed by clarification of the precursors and consequences of
each strength. An eventual goal is intervention to build strengths.
We believe that human strengths can only be fully understood when studied for
changes and continuity across the lifespan. Just as it would appear ridiculous to try
to measure and foster cognitive skills similarly in 6-year-olds and 86-year-olds,
positive psychologists should not consider curiosity, or self-control, static across
the adult lifespan. The most obvious reason for this is that strengths reveal
themselves in behaviors, and behaviors may be seen differently when performed in
individuals of different ages. For example, the same actions may be viewed by
others as reflecting curiosity when performed by a young adult, but as reflecting
forgetfulness and senility when performed by an older individual (see Erber,
Szuchman, & Prager, 2001 for an example of differences in how people view
behaviors of individuals of various ages). On a more complex level, theories of
adult development may suggest differences in how much of a particular strength
adults of different ages should possess, and how helpful it should be for them
to possess that strength. Erikson’s psychosocial stage theory of development
(Erikson, 1950), for example, suggests that generative skills increase from youngto middle-adulthood; furthermore, generativity should be more adaptive to the
middle-aged than to the younger or older adult if indeed it is the core psychosocial
task for that age group.
Thus, there are two main lifespan developmental issues to be addressed. The
first is the issue of levels: do individuals of different ages have different mean
levels of each particular strength? While cross-sectional data cannot distinguish
between age and cohort effects to explain mean differences between age groups,
they are nonetheless an important first step in establishing a lifespan framework
for understanding strengths. The second issue is life satisfaction and well-being.
While strengths are valued in their own right (see Peterson & Seligman, in press),
it is likely that some strengths relate positively to life satisfaction and well-being.
Furthermore, a strength may relate strongly to well-being at one life stage (when it
matches the developmental tasks of that time), but relate less strongly or not at all
to well-being at other times in the adult lifespan.
An Example: Hope and Optimism
Looking at optimism in more detail highlights important lifespan issues relevant to the study of strengths. There are two main ways of defining and measuring
optimism. According to Scheier and Carver (1985), dispositional optimism
involves an individual’s general expectancy that good things will happen to them
AGING AND HUMAN STRENGTHS /
183
in the future. While studies have investigated the relationship of dispositional
optimism and well-being in groups ranging from college students (Vickers &
Vogeltanz, 2000) to middle-aged women (Bromberger & Matthews, 1996) to
older caregivers (Robinson-Whelen, Kim, MacCallum, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1997),
age differences in levels of dispositional optimism have been studied only very
recently. Isaacowitz (2001) assessed dispositional optimism and pessimism in
young, middle-aged, and older adults. Older adults scored higher on both
dispositional optimism and pessimism, which are independent (Mroczek, Spiro,
Aldwin, Ozer, & Bossé, 1993), than did younger individuals, and this finding
remained significant even after controlling for self-reported health. The gist of the
well-being findings is that either more dispositional optimism or less dispositional
pessimism usually predicts positive psychological and physical outcomes;
however, some studies find only effects of optimism, while others find effects only
with pessimism (e.g., Robinson-Whelen et al., 1997; Vickers & Vogeltanz, 2000).
What has not varied, however, is that more dispositional optimism and/or less
dispositional pessimism have always predicted positive outcomes, when they
predicted any outcomes at all.
According to explanatory style theory, the second optimism construct in the
literature, an optimist tends to explain negative events as being caused by external,
temporary, and specific factors. In contrast, a pessimist attributes the negative
events to internal, stable and global causes (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale,
1978; Peterson & Seligman, 1984; Seligman, 1990). Older individuals tend to
report more optimistic explanatory style in some domains than do younger people.
For example, older individuals have a more optimistic explanatory style for
affiliation events than do younger adults (Isaacowitz, 2001). However, whereas
clear evidence exists linking optimistic explanatory styles and well-being in young
people (see, for example, Metalsky, Abramson, Seligman, Semmel, & Peterson,
1982), the evidence from older individuals is mixed. Optimistic explanatory
style may even predict declining well-being in older individuals experiencing
several stressful life events in a short period of time (Isaacowitz & Seligman,
2001; Isaacowitz & Seligman, 2002; cf. Kamen-Siegel, Rodin, Seligman, &
Dwyer, 1991; see Isaacowitz & Seligman, 2003, for a discussion).
Research on optimism in adulthood and old age therefore illustrates how there
may be shifts in both the mean levels of a strength and the strength’s relationship to
well-being across the adult lifespan, and even these may differ depending on how
the strength is measured.
Classifying and Measuring Strengths
The current attempt by the positive psychology movement to measure human
strengths has gone through several iterations in its first few years. The original
classification, referred to as the Wellsprings of a Positive Life, consisted of 16
potential strengths, a list which has evolved into the current 24 strengths included
184
/
ISAACOWITZ, VAILLANT AND SELIGMAN
in the VIA classification (Peterson & Seligman, in press; see Appendix A for a
comparison of the 16- and 24-strength lists). Early in this process, the Gallup
Organization, in collaboration with two of the current study authors, developed
“The Wellsprings Questionnaire,” a self-report measure based on the original
list of 16 strengths. The questionnaire contained five items per strength, and
individuals responded on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 concerning how much each
strength-relevant statement applied to them.
The data reported in the current study was collected using the 16-strength questionnaire in two different samples of adults. In order to keep up with the evolving
classification of strengths, we attempted to map the items on the 16-strength
questionnaire to the 24-strength VIA classification (Peterson & Seligman, in
press). Two very different groups of adults completed this questionnaire: the first
group included the surviving members of the Grant Sample of Harvard graduates
(see Vaillant, 1977; Vaillant & Mukamal, 2001; Vaillant & Vaillant, 1990), a
group of men selected from the sophomore class at Harvard between 1940 and
1942 because they seemed healthy and likely to succeed in life. At the time they
completed the questionnaire, most of the Grant Study men were in their late
70s and early 80s.
The second sample was a community sample of young, middle-aged and older
adults, primarily from the Philadelphia area. This sample was obviously different
than the Grant Study men in more ways than simply being younger. Sample
participants were also less educated, more likely to be female, and more ethnically
diverse than the Grant Study participants.
Goals of the Current Study
With these two very different samples, we hoped to begin to unravel the story of
human strengths in adulthood and old age. While our analyses were primarily
exploratory in nature, we did have several more specified hypotheses, in line with
current theory on adult development and aging:
1. Young adulthood is a time when individuals explore their interpersonal
environment and try to find their socioemotional niche in the world (e.g.
Erikson, 1950). Therefore, we expect young adults to report the highest
levels of strengths that have to do with exploring the world, such as
originality and appreciation of beauty. Strengths that allow individuals to
navigate the world and protect them in the face of setbacks, such as
optimism and loving relationships, should also loom large in the well-being
of young adults.
2. Middle age is a time when individuals focus on career and family (Lachman,
2001), so strengths relevant to those domains, including capacity for loving
relationships and self-control, should be most centrally related to well-being
during that life stage. It may be that the time and energy demands of
focusing on these areas makes it harder for middle-aged individuals to use
AGING AND HUMAN STRENGTHS /
185
and benefit from the use of less-applied strengths, such as appreciation of
beauty. Furthermore, they may score lower on levels of strengths across the
board due to the many constraints on their time.
3. In old age, individuals appear to focus on close social partners and familiar
emotional relationships (Carstensen, Isaacowitz, & Charles, 1999). Therefore, we expected older individuals to have the highest levels of strengths
that reflect and relate to socioemotional functioning, such as capacity
for love and kindness. Additionally, older individuals appear better able
to regulate their emotions than younger individuals (Gross et al., 1997),
suggesting they may be higher on strengths of temperance and control.
In terms of the relationship of strengths to well-being, we hypothesized
that high levels of socioemotional strengths would particularly relate to
well-being in older adults. Furthermore, older adults are largely free from
the constraints of work and raising children, and may have more opportunity
to use strengths (or not) than other age groups. Therefore, we expected to
see a particularly strong relationship between report of strengths and wellbeing in this age group.
METHOD
Participants
The first group of participants in the current study were those men of the Grant
Study of Harvard graduates still living and in contact with the study during 1999
(for more information on the sample, see Vaillant, 1977; Vaillant & Mukamal,
2001, Vaillant & Vaillant, 1990). Eighty-nine participants returned the questionnaire, though there was quite a bit of missing data on the returned forms. These
Caucasian men were, on average, 78 years of age (plus/minus two years) at the
time they received the questionnaire. One hundred fifty-eight Grant men were
alive at that time; the rate of questionnaire response in the sample was therefore
a modest 56%.
We recruited participants for the second, community sample from three adult
age groups: young adults (age 18-25), middle-aged adults (age 36-59) and older
adults (age 60 and above). Older adults could only participate if they were
community-dwelling, did not utilize any regular skilled nursing care in their
housing, and did not show any clear evidence of cognitive impairment. Young
adults were recruited primarily through written and electronic advertisements in
the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area, and many were students in local colleges and
universities. We recruited the majority of the middle-aged participants from
church and synagogue groups in the Philadelphia area, and the older adults
primarily from senior centers in the region.
One hundred young adults, 86 middle-aged adults, and 94 older adults comprised the community sample. The young adults (mean age = 20.56, SD = 1.75)
186
/
ISAACOWITZ, VAILLANT AND SELIGMAN
consisted of 27 male and 73 female participants; of these, 67 identified themselves as Caucasian, eight as African-American, 19 as Asian or Asian-American,
and six as members of other ethnic groups. The middle-aged group (mean
age = 48.74, SD = 4.90) had 30 men and 56 women, with 74 Caucasians, eight
African-Americans, and three Asian-Americans. One middle-aged adult did not
report ethnicity. Finally, the older adult group (mean age = 76.71, SD = 8.70)
consisted of 31 men and 63 women. This group included 83 Caucasians
and 10 African-Americans. One older adult participant did not report ethnicity.
Chi-square analyses revealed that the ethnic distribution of the three age
groups was significantly different, P2 (6, N = 278) = 37.62, p < .001. Not surprisingly, group differences also emerged on educational attainment and
self-reported health at baseline: education: F(2, 265) = 81.38, p < .0001; health:
F(2, 275) = 34.48, p < .0001. The middle-aged group had the most total years of
education completed (M = 17.67, SD = 3.32), followed by the young adults
(M = 14.77, SD = 1.63) and the older adults (M = 12.34, SD = 3.07). For
self-reported health, young adults reported the highest levels (M = 3.45, SD = .89),
followed by middle-aged (M = 3.01, SD = .76) and older adults (M = 2.29,
SD = .94) on a self-report scale going from 0 (poor) to 4 (excellent). All pairwise
comparisons between the age groups revealed significant group differences using
Tukey contrasts.
Procedure
Participants from the Grant Study were sent the self-report measure of strengths,
which contained a measure of life satisfaction embedded within it. They were
provided with instructions concerning how to complete the measure, and were
asked to mail it back. Participants from the community study completed the
measure as part of a larger packet of questionnaires, either one-on-one or in a small
group with an interviewer to answer questions and transcribe responses in case
of any vision or reading problems.
Measures
16-Strength Questionnaire: A Measure of Human Strengths
The original 100-item Wellsprings Questionnaire was developed by the Gallup
Organization in 1999 as a face-valid self-report measure of human strengths, based
on the classification of strengths developed earlier that year by a small group of
social scientists convened in the Cayman Islands for such purpose. This group
proposed the following 16 “characteristics” associated with a good life: capacity
for love and intimacy, satisfying work, helping others/altruism, being a good
citizen, spirituality, leadership, aesthetic appreciation/pleasures of the mind,
knowledge and understanding of areas of life larger than one’s self (depth and
AGING AND HUMAN STRENGTHS /
187
breadth), integrity (principles, ethics), creativity/originality, play, courage, purposive future-mindedness, individuality, self-regulation, and wisdom.
The classification system has changed several times since then (for the most
recent version, see Peterson & Seligman, in press). In the fall of 2000, one of us
mapped the most up-to-date classification on to the existing items of the
Wellsprings questionnaire. Some new strengths were well-represented (love,
citizenship, spirituality, wisdom), while others had too few items to warrant
further analysis (such as personal intelligence and love of life). If a particular
strength had at least four associated items it was retained for further analysis,
thereby leaving originality, appreciation of beauty, hope, courage, humor,
capacity for loving relationships, kindness, citizenship, industry, humane leadership, self-control, wisdom, and spirituality. A second level of exclusion for further
analysis was that each strength scale with enough items had a coefficient alpha of
at least .6 in both the Grant study and adult development samples. This left, with
coefficient alpha from the community adult sample in parentheses: originality
(.64), hope (.80), citizenship (.75), capacity to love and be loved (.61), wisdom
(.75), spirituality (.62), appreciation of beauty (.71), kindness (.64), and selfcontrol/self-regulation (.67). Appendix B lists items from the questionnaire
representing each strength.
Satisfaction with Life Scale
The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS: Pavot, Diener, Colvin, & Sandvik,
1991) is a five-item self-report measure assessing an individual’s cognitive
assessment of their life. Higher scores indicate higher levels of satisfaction with
current life. Previous research has found either no age differences on life satisfaction, or slightly positive age trajectories (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999).
Life satisfaction is considered to be a central component of subjective well-being
(Diener et al., 1999).
RESULTS
While age differences emerged on mean levels of several strengths, the primary
result was the differential unique predictors of life satisfaction in the different age
groups and samples. Only hope predicted satisfaction in young adults, and only
capacity for loving predicted satisfaction in middle-aged adults. Hope, citizenship
and capacity for loving relationships all emerged as unique predictors among the
community sample of older adults. In contrast, only capacity for loving relationships and appreciation of beauty predicted life satisfaction among the men of the
Grant sample.
Below, we first present descriptive statistics on mean levels of each strength and
life satisfaction within the Grant Sample men and within the three adult age
groups. While we present means and standard deviations for all four groups, we
present group comparisons among the three groups from the adult sample, as
188
/
ISAACOWITZ, VAILLANT AND SELIGMAN
well as between the older adult group from the community and the similar-aged
men of the Grant study. We then describe the pattern of correlations between
each strength and life satisfaction in each of the samples, and finally we report
analyses aimed at determining unique strength-based predictors of life satisfaction
within each of the groups.
Age Differences in Strengths
As shown in Table 1, age differences among the three age groups from the adult
development study emerged on all the strengths except for hope and wisdom. For
each strength that showed an omnibus group difference, Tukey post-hoc pairwise
comparisons were performed to test for differences between pairs of age groups.
Older adults scored higher on self-control than did young or middle-aged individuals. Large group differences also emerged on spirituality: the older, the more
spiritual within the community sample, but the men of the Grant study scored
much lower than their community agemates. On appreciation of beauty, young
adults scored higher than older adults, whereas for kindness, middle-aged
individuals scored higher than did younger individuals, and Grant study men
scored lower than their community older agemates on this strength. For
Table 1. Mean Levels of Strengths in Three Adult Age Groups,
As Well As in Members of the Grant Study Sample
Strength:
Mean (SD)
Originality
Hope
Citizenship
Loving relationships
Wisdom
Spirituality
Beauty
Kindness
Self-control
Young Middle Older
adults aged adults
18.93a
(2.97)
26.97
(4.41)
26.77a
(4.02)
15.14
(2.78)
15.64
(2.60)
23.64a
(4.44)
24.47a
(3.50)
23.36a
(3.39)
21.29a
(3.74)
18.59a
(4.24)
27.33
(3.47)
29.29b
(4.96)
15.69
(2.55)
15.71
(2.20)
25.46b
(4.17)
23.78
(3.48)
25.20b
(6.10)
21.23a
(3.32)
16.91b
(3.49)
26.42
(3.95)
30.33b
(4.68)
16.03
(2.69)
15.19
(2.85)
27.1c
(3.26)
23.17b
(3.91)
24.02
(4.13)
22.82b
(3.96)
Group difference
F(2, 276) = 8.68**
n.s.
F(2, 276) =15.68***
F(2, 277) = 2.73#
n.s.
F(2, 273) =17.74***
F(2, 275) = 3.04*
F(2, 277) = 3.74*
F(2, 276) = 5.49**
Grant sample
(t vs. older)
15.62 (3.44)
t(170) = 2.46*
25.37 (3.04)
t(166) = 1.96#
27.46 (6.08)
t(145) = 3.42***
15.53 (2.56)
t(179) = 1.28
14.59 (2.13)
t(168) = 1.53
20.50 (5.01)
t(169) = 11.56***
22.38 (3.48)
t(175) = 1.42
22.86 (2.86)
t(170) = 2.10*
22.47 (2.90)
t(179) = .67
Note: Variables with different superscripts differed significantly from each other on
post-hoc Tukey comparisons.
#
p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
AGING AND HUMAN STRENGTHS /
189
originality, older adults scored lower than younger adults, but Grant study men
scored even lower than young adults. Middle-aged and older adults scored higher
on citizenship than did young adults, but Grant sample men scored lower than their
community agemates.
We also used age as a continuous measure in the adult community sample, even
though the sample lacks individuals in the 26-36 age range. Higher age correlated with higher levels of citizenship (r = .29, p < .0001), more self-control
(r = .15, p < .05), and more spirituality (r = .32, p < .0001), but with lower levels of
originality (r = –.23, p < .001) and lower appreciation of beauty (r = –.18, p < .01).
Gender and Education Analyses Within the
Adult Community Sample
Because there were differences in education levels among the three age groups,
we re-ran the age analyses in the adult community sample controlling for
years of education. Age-group differences favoring middle-aged over younger
adults were eliminated for kindness. Significant age-group differences in which
older individuals scored higher than younger adults on self-control but lower on
appreciation of beauty became only marginally significant after controlling for
education. Significant age-group differences remained for originality, citizenship,
and spirituality.
We also tested for gender differences within the community sample, as well for
Age group × Sex interaction differences in the strengths. Mean differences are
shown in Table 2. Women scored higher than men on citizenship, loving relationships, and appreciation of beauty.
Age group × Sex interactions were significant for two strengths. In general, men
appeared to show larger positive age differences in citizenship and self-control.
Table 2. Gender Differences in Mean Levels of Each Strength
in the Adult Community Sample
Strength
Men (n = 88)
Women (n = 192)
Originality
Hope
Citizenshipa
Loving relationships
Wisdom
Spirituality
Beauty
Kindness
Self-controla
18.31 (3.34)
26.92 (3.75)
27.78 (4.70)
14.91 (2.91)
15.21 (2.69)
24.61 (4.75)
23.08 (4.01)
24.05 (6.36)
21.89 (3.69)
18.08 (3.82)
26.89 (4.10)
29.17 (4.77)
15.93 (2.53)
15.59 (2.59)
25.67 (3.95)
24.17 (3.44)
24.19 (3.63)
21.73 (3.79)
#
Gender difference
t(277) =
t(276) =
t(277) =
t(278) =
t(277) =
t(143) =
t(276) =
t(114) =
t(277) =
.47
.06
–2.26*
–2.97**
–1.13
–1.82#b
–2.31*
–.18b
.33
p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
Indicates variable with a significant sex * age group interaction.
b
Indicates variable in which group had unequal variance. In these cases, Satterthwaite
method used for t-test.
a
190
/
ISAACOWITZ, VAILLANT AND SELIGMAN
For self-control, women’s scores varied little over adulthood (means for young,
middle-aged, and older: 21.67, 21.16, 22.28, respectively), whereas older men
scored much higher on self-control than younger men (means 20.24, 21.35, and
24, respectively). On citizenship, middle-aged and older women scored higher
than younger women (27.21, 30.38, 30.33, respectively), whereas each age group
of older men scored higher than the younger group (25.55, 27.35, 30.30, respectively). These interactions are shown in Figures 1 and 2.
Life Satisfaction
There appeared to be group differences in life satisfaction, with young
and middle-aged adults from the community sample scoring lowest (young:
M = 16.84, SD = 3.39; middle aged: M = 16.85, SD = 4.08), followed by the older
Figure 1. Age × sex interaction for mean levels of self-control.
AGING AND HUMAN STRENGTHS /
191
adults from the community sample (M = 17.81, SD = 4.38), with the men of the
Grant sample scoring highest on life satisfaction (M = 18.75, SD = 3.9). However,
neither the omnibus ANOVA testing for group differences within the three
community adult samples [F(2, 274) = 1.98, n.s.] nor the independent samples
t-test comparing the older adults from the community with the men of the Grant
sample were significant [t(181) = .94, n.s.]. Men and women in the community
sample did not differ in their mean level of life satisfaction. The lack of significant
group differences made life satisfaction especially desirable as an outcome
measure, as it was especially sensitive to different human strength correlates and
unique predictors. In this section, we first report on correlations between strengths
and life satisfaction with each age group. We then report on unique prediction of
life satisfaction, testing each strength within each group while holding all other
strengths constant.
Figure 2. Age × sex interaction for mean levels of citizenship.
192
/
ISAACOWITZ, VAILLANT AND SELIGMAN
Table 3. Correlations between Strengths and Life Satisfaction
(As Measured by the Satisfaction with Life Scale)
in the Three Adult Sample Age Groups and the Grant Sample
Strength
(r with SWLS)
Young
adults
Middle
aged
Older
adults
Grant
sample
Originality
Hope
Citizenship
Loving relationships
Wisdom
Spirituality
Beauty
Kindness
Self-control
.26**
.46***
.24*
.17#
.33***
.14
.11
.30**
.41***
–.13
.35***
.20#
.46***
.04
.17
–.05
.07
.24*
.17#
.47***
.52***
.51***
.43***
.30**
.26*
.40***
.41***
.18#
.41***
.26*
.48***
.23*
.10
.38***
.39***
.22*
#
p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Correlations of Strengths with Life Satisfaction
Simple correlations between level of each strength and life satisfaction within
each of the four groups are provided in Table 3. Not surprisingly, higher
levels of most strengths correlated strongly and positively with higher levels of
self-reported life satisfaction across the four groups. Notably, however, the pattern
of significant correlations was much weaker in the middle-aged adult sample than
in any of the other three samples. For example, higher levels of wisdom and
kindness correlated with greater life satisfaction in young adults, older adults, and
among the men of the Grant study, but these strengths did not correlate with life
satisfaction in the middle-aged sample. Interestingly, higher levels of spirituality
correlated with greater life satisfaction only within the community older sample,
but not within any of the other samples.
Controlling for education produced several interesting differences. It did not
change the relationships among the young adults at all, but among middle-aged
individuals kindness became significantly related to life satisfaction once
education was controlled (pr = .22, p < .05). Controlling for education produced
the most dramatic changes in the older sample. Originality and appreciation of
beauty no longer correlated with life satisfaction, and the magnitude of the
relationships between life satisfaction and kindness, citizenship, love, and wisdom
were attenuated but remained significant.
Unique Strength Predictors of Life Satisfaction
Table 4 shows more conservative analyses linking the strengths with life
satisfaction within each of the four groups, evaluating the contribution of each
variable to a model predicting life satisfaction after all other strengths have been
AGING AND HUMAN STRENGTHS /
193
Table 4. Unique Predictors of Life Satisfaction in Each Sample
Young adult
Strength
b
t
Middle aged
b
t
Older adult
b
t
Grant sample
b
t
–.29
–.03
–1.17
.17
–.18
.03
–.32
Originality
–.05
1.56
.23
1.27
2.09*
.24
.23
2.54*
Hope
.43
.65
.07
1.20
.52
.09
.05
2.79**
Citizenship
.40
Loving
4.22***
.44
2.43*
.15
.47
.02
2.04*
relationships
.41
–1.82#
–.39
–.83
.12
–.23
.02
.02
Wisdom
.01
.05
–1.48
–1.24
–.13
–.10
.32
Spirituality
.05
.38
–.23
2.36*
–.46
.33
–.05
–.62
Beauty
–.09
–1.68#
.01
.85
1.49
.16
.19
Kindness
–.27 –1.39
.15
.05
.94
1.73
.13
.19
–.89
Self-control
–.16
.38
F for model
F(9,90) = 4.05*** F(9,72) = 4.52*** F(9,76) = 4.86*** F(9,70) = 4.25***
#
p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Each b represents the unique effect of each predictor while holding all others constant.
entered into the regression model. Within the young adult sample, only hope
significantly predicted life satisfaction. Only capacity for loving relationships
significantly predicted life satisfaction among middle-aged adults. Both of these
strengths positively predicted life satisfaction; higher strength levels predicted
more life satisfaction. Interestingly, the two other strengths that reached the level
of nonsignificant trends in the prediction of life satisfaction in the middle-aged
sample were negative predictors; higher levels of wisdom and appreciation of
beauty related to lower levels of life satisfaction in the middle-aged sample.
Within the community older sample, hope, citizenship and loving all emerged
as unique positive predictors of life satisfaction. Higher levels of loving also
predicted more life satisfaction in the Grant sample; however, hope, and
citizenship did not. Instead, higher levels of appreciation of beauty predicted
higher life satisfaction in the sample of Harvard graduates.
DISCUSSION
We compared both the levels of different human strengths as well as the
relationship between the strengths and life satisfaction across four adult samples.
The four samples included three community-based samples of adults ranging in
age from 18 to 93, as well as the surviving members of the Grant study of Harvard
graduates, who were mostly about 78 years of age at the time they completed the
measures for this study.
The most interesting findings emerged when we tested for unique predictors
between each strength and life satisfaction, above and beyond the effects of all
other strengths. A sole strength emerged as a significant unique predictor in the
young and middle-aged samples; for the young adults it was hope, and for the
194
/
ISAACOWITZ, VAILLANT AND SELIGMAN
middle-aged adults it was loving relationships. Hope, citizenship and loving relationships all emerged as unique predictors of life satisfaction in the community
older adult sample, whereas among the older men of the Grant sample, only loving
relationships and appreciation of beauty significantly predicted life satisfaction.
All the significant predictive relationships were positive; higher levels of strengths
uniquely predicted more life satisfaction. Interestingly, two trends emerged in the
middle-aged sample in the opposite direction where there were trends for higher
levels of wisdom and appreciation of beauty to predict lower levels of life
satisfaction among these midlife adults.
Age-group differences were also found for mean levels of all strengths with the
exceptions of wisdom and hope (though the comparison of the two late-life
samples was marginally significant for hope, with the Grant study men scoring
lower than the community older adults). We hypothesized that younger adults
focus more on exploring the world (e.g., originality), whereas older individuals
possess more self-regulatory strengths; our findings generally supported these
hypotheses. Controlling for education attenuated some of these age-group differences; additionally, modest Age × Gender interactions emerged for self-control
and citizenship, such that older men reported particularly high levels of both
strengths compared to younger men.
Generally, higher levels of strengths correlated with more life satisfaction
across the four groups. In the older community sample, all strengths correlated
positively with life satisfaction (except for originality, which was only marginally
significant). Interestingly, spirituality correlated with life satisfaction only
among the community-dwelling older adults, but not in any of the other groups.
While only spirituality and appreciation of beauty failed to correlate with life
satisfaction in young adults, only self-control, capacity for loving relationships,
and hope significantly correlated with life satisfaction in middle-aged adults.
This supported our hypothesis that middle age is a time when adults are too
busy with work and family demands to truly benefit from their strengths; their
self-reports of strengths suggest that they simply do not have the opportunity
to exercise, and benefit from, the use of their strengths due to constraints on
their time. Nonetheless, these differences between age groups may reflect
cohort effects rather than differences between age groups in life context; this
cross-sectional data can not distinguish between these two plausible explanations
for the findings.
Age Differences
Age differences in the levels and relationship to satisfaction of the various
strengths to the developmental tasks of each time in the adult lifespan make
theoretical sense (see Erikson, 1950; Heckhausen, 1999). Young adults reported
the highest levels of strengths associated with exploring the world creatively (such
as originality and appreciation of beauty). Middle-aged adults rated high on
AGING AND HUMAN STRENGTHS /
195
generativity-relevant strengths such as citizenship and kindness, just as Erikson
predicts. And finally, older adults rated high on interpersonal and self-regulatory
strengths, consistent with socioemotional selectivity theory’s claim that older
adults proactively regulate their emotions by being choosy about their social
interactions (Carstensen et al., 1999).
Unique predictors based on hierarchical regression did distinguish the three
community age groups, and matched the developmental tasks for the young
and middle-aged groups. Hope, for young adults, and loving, for middleaged individuals emerged as the sole unique predictors of life satisfaction.
Younger adults need to make choices that will bank resources for the future
(Carstensen et al., 1999), and they benefit from optimistic perspectives that make
for continued perseverance even in the face of temporary setbacks (Seligman,
1990). Middle-aged individuals are occupied with family: raising children,
keeping a marriage going—making their capacity to nurture close relationships
especially critical.
Older individuals have fewer constraints forcing them to channel their energies
in any particular direction. They are thereby able to benefit from a wider range of
strengths. For them, both the strengths important to the younger age groups, as
well as citizenship, emerged as unique predictors of life satisfaction. Thus, older
adults can exhibit strengths on intrapsychic, interpersonal, and social-cultural
levels. Freed from the need to bank resources for the future (Carstensen et al.,
1999), older individuals may select and utilize whatever strengths give them the
most effective reward in the present.
Community vs. Grant Sample
The men of the Grant study differed from age-matched adults from the community sample in intriguing ways. The Grant study men reported lower levels of
most strengths than their older community agemates, and their unique predictors
of life satisfaction differed. While capacity for loving relationships was similar
across community middle-aged, community older, and Grant samples, appreciation of beauty uniquely predicted life satisfaction only among the Grant men.
This difference suggests one interpretation of the Grant study findings: that
men put more value on the intellectual and aesthetic aspects of life than the
prosocial, interpersonal, or self-regulatory aspects. Combining the finding of
lower levels of spirituality among the Grant men than their community peers with
the unique relationship between appreciation of beauty and life satisfaction only
found among the Grant men suggests that this group of men may be using aesthetic
appreciation as a form of spirituality. However, this interpretation is purely
speculative and ignores the obvious demographic differences between the Grant
sample and the community adult samples. The majority of community participants were female, while all of the Grant participants were male. Unfortunately,
there are too few men in the community sample to determine whether sample
196
/
ISAACOWITZ, VAILLANT AND SELIGMAN
differences merely reflect gender differences. However, it seems unlikely that
all older men would have such a strong link between appreciation of beauty and
life satisfaction, suggesting this difference is due to something other than gender.
As a preliminary attempt to evaluate whether sample differences arose simply
from the major gender differences between the sample participants, we conducted
post-hoc analyses comparing the men of the community sample (across age
groups) with the Grant men and found that men in the community sample were,
in general, more similar to the community women than to the Grant men. It is
important to note, however, that the Grant men were also slightly older than
the community olderadult sample, and they were also better-educated and of a
higher socioeconomic status. Additionally, some of the community participants
(particularly from the middle-aged sample) were recruited from religious institutions, thus confounding the Grant vs. community comparisons in an additional way.
A plausible explanation is that these differences in socioeconomic status and
education led to life trajectories in which aesthetics were valued more, and spirituality was valued less for these Harvard men than they were in the adult lives of
the majority of individuals in their cohort. In his work with the Grant study men at
age 47, Vaillant (1977) noted that spirituality did not appear to play a central role
in their lives. This still held true at age 75 (Vaillant, 2002). These findings provide
some multi-method support for our results.
Limitations and Future Directions
While it has been convenient to develop a self-report measure of various
strengths, there are obvious drawbacks to such a measure. Individuals may not be
accurate at reporting on their own strengths. Recent work has sought to validate
the self-report measures using behavioral indices of the various strengths (see
Peterson & Seligman, in press). For the purposes of the present study, this is a
marked limitation because we are using one type of self-report measure (strengths)
to predict simultaneous scores on a separate self-report measure (life satisfaction).
Longitudinal analyses, using strengths as an independent variable and change over
time in life satisfaction (as well as other subjective well-being measures) as the
dependent measure, will illuminate whether strengths may serve a protective or
buffering function in the face of negative life events.
Of course, a brief longitudinal component will not change the inherently
cross-sectional nature of the age comparisons used in the study. Differences
between the age groups may reflect either developmental trajectories or cohort
effects, or a combination of both. The Grant sample findings suggest that life
context factors can play a role in the relationship of strengths to well-being, supporting the possible role of cohort factors. However, the close match of levels and
relation to well-being of the various strengths to hypothesized developmental
tasks of the adult lifespan support a more developmental interpretation.
AGING AND HUMAN STRENGTHS /
197
CONCLUSIONS
While lifespan developmental psychologists have consistently been concerned
with “the good life” in old age, insofar as it could be measured by life satisfaction
or by zest, positive psychology’s recent attempts to measure various human
strengths and virtues as indicators of a good life have ignored the implications of
aging for these constructs. This study explored how human strengths might unfold
in adulthood and old age, in both community-dwelling adults of various ages as
well as in a highly selected group of older men. Our primary finding is that age differences match up nicely with the developmental tasks of the various age groups.
Younger adults explore the world and benefit most from hope of a good future,
whereas middle-aged individuals are most focused on their relationships. Older
adults possess more self-control, but also more opportunity to benefit from the use
of a variety of strengths.
The deployment of strengths therefore appears fundamentally related to
development across the lifespan. Thus, developmental tasks, and the context of
these tasks across the lifespan, must be central to any attempt to understand human
strengths. The best qualities in individuals may depend not just on their inner
beings, but also on their time in life and their place on earth as well.
APPENDIX A
Comparison of Lists of 16-Strengths and 24-Strengths
16-Strength List
Creativity/originality
Wisdom
Integrity
Capacity for love and intimacy
Helping others/altruism
Being a good citizen
Leadership
24-Strength List
Curiosity/interest
Love of learning
Active open-mindedness
Creativity/ingenuity
Perspective/wisdom
Valor/courage
Industry/perseverance
Integrity/honesty/authenticity
Vitality/zest/enthusiasm
Intimacy/attachment
Kindness/generosity
Social intelligence
Citizenship/teamwork
Equity/fairness
Leadership
Forgiveness/mercy
198
/
ISAACOWITZ, VAILLANT AND SELIGMAN
APPENDIX A (Cont'd.)
16-Strength List
Self-control/self regulation
Aesthetic appreciation
Purposive future-mindedness
Play
Spirituality
Satisfying work
Knowledge and understanding of areas larger
than one's self
Individuality
24-Strength List
Modesty/humility
Prudence/caution
Self-control/self-regulation
Awe/appreciation of beauty
Gratitude
Hope/optimism
Playfulness
Spirituality
APPENDIX B
Items Used to Measure Strengths
Originality
My imagination stretches far beyond that of my associates.
In the last month I have found an original solution to a problem in my life.
In the last week I have had the opportunity to use my imagination to make something better.
I have a powerful urge to do something original during this next year.
When someone tells me how to do something, I spontaneously think of alternative
ways to get the same thing done.
Hope
I have clear pictures in my mind about what i want to happen in the future.
I have what it takes to succeed.
I have confidence in the choices I make.
I have a plan for what I want to be doing five years from now.
I will succeed with the goals I set for myself.
I have confidence in my intuitive ways of doing things.
Citizenship
I volunteer five or more hours of community or professional service each week.
Volunteering to help others makes me feel good.
I generously contribute money to worthwhile causes.
AGING AND HUMAN STRENGTHS /
199
I currently know over 100 persons whom I could rally to achieve a goal I believed in.
I feel a responsibility to use my time and energy to make the world a better place
to live.
I frequently go out of my way to help people in need.
I do many helpful things for people that go unrecognized.
Others trust me to keep their secrets.
Capacity for loving relationships
There are people in my life who care as much about my feelings and well-being as
they do about their own.
I believe I am the most important person in someone else's life.
My family and close friends can not do anything that would make me not love
them.
I always feel the presence of love in my life.
Wisdom
Others come to me for advice.
I intentionally seek conversations with people whom I believe to be wise.
I consider myself to be a wise person.
Overall, others consider me to be a wise person.
Spirituality
In the last 24 hours, I have personally spent 30 minutes in prayer, meditation or
contemplation.
I have a set of principles that govern my life.
I believe that each person has a soul.
I believe there is a spirit that survives after the death of the body that can communicate with persons still living.
I believe in a universal power, a god.
My beliefs make me feel my life is important.
I have had dreams that foretold what was going to happen.
Appreciation of beauty
I sometimes have a craving for experiencing great art, such as music, drama, or
paintings.
I have created something of beauty in the last year.
I make it a point to tell people about what they do well.
In the last month I have enjoyed classical music, art, drama, science or
mathematics.
I often experience emotions evoked by beauty.
I often see beauty that other people pass by without noticing.
Kindness
I have a neighbor or someone at work who cares about me as a person.
In the last two days, I have performed acts that were helpful to another person, but
had no direct personal benefit for me.
200
/
ISAACOWITZ, VAILLANT AND SELIGMAN
APPENDIX B (Cont'd.)
I have cared deeply about someone for ten or more years.
I make other people happy.
I have voluntarily helped a neighbor in the last month.
I seem to have an uncanny sense for making others feel good.
Self-control/self-regulation
I am a goal-oriented person.
I am a highly disciplined person.
I always pay my bills on time.
I can keep cool while others are freaking out.
I have the capacity for concentrating on the goals i set for myself.
"A place for everything and everything in its place" describes me perfectly.
REFERENCES
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness:
Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49–74.
Bromberger, J. T., & Matthews, K. A. (1996). A longitudinal study of the effects of
pessimism, trait anxiety, and life stress on depressive symptoms in middle-aged women.
Psychology and Aging, 11, 207–213.
Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously:
A theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54, 165–181.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being:
Three decades of progress. Psychologist Bulletin, 125, 276-302.
Erber, J. T., Szuchman, L. T., & Prager, I. G. (2001). Ain’t misbehavin’: The effects of
age and intentionality on judgments about misconduct. Psychology and Aging, 16, 85-95.
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Gross, J. J., Carstensen, L. L., Pasupathi, M., Tsai, J., Goetestam Skorpen, C., & Hsu,
A. Y. C. (1997). Emotion and aging: Experience, expression, and control. Psychology and
Aging, 12, 590-599.
Heckhausen, J. (1999). Developmental regulation in adulthood: Age-normative and
sociocultural constraints as adaptive challenges. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Isaacowitz, D. M. (2001). Optimism and subjective well-being in adulthood and old
age. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Isaacowitz, D. M., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2001). Is pessimistic explanatory style a risk
factor for depressive mood among community-dwelling older adults? Behaviour Research
and Therapy, 39, 255–273.
Isaacowitz, D. M., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Cognitive style predictors of affect
change in older adults. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 54,
233–253.
Isaacowitz, D. M., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2003). Cognitive styles and psychological
well-being in adulthood and old age. In M. Bornstein, L. Davidson, C. L. M. Keyes, &
K. Moore (Eds.), Well-Being: Positive development across the lifespan (pp. 449-475).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
AGING AND HUMAN STRENGTHS /
201
Kamen-Siegel, L., Rodin, J., Seligman, M. E. P., & Dwyer, J. (1991). Explanatory
style and cell-mediated immunity. Health Psychology, 10, 229–235.
Lachman, M. E. (2001). Handbook of midlife development. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
Metalsky, G. I., Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., Semmel, A., & Peterson, C. R.
(1982). Attributional styles and life events in the classroom: Vulnerability and invulnerability to depressive mood reactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
43, 612–617.
Mroczek, D. K., Spiro, A. III, Aldwin, C. M., Ozer, D. J., & Bossé, R. (1993). Construct
validation of optimism and pessimism in older men: Findings from the Normative Aging
Study. Health Psychology, 12, 406–409.
Pavot, W. G., Diener, E., Colvin, C. R., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Further validation of the
satisfaction with life scale: Evidence for the cross-method convergence of well-being
measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 149–161.
Peterson, C. P., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1984). Causal explanations as a risk factor of
depression. Psychological Review, 91, 347–374.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (in press). The VIA classification of strengths.
Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
http://psych.upenn.edu/Seligman/viastrengthsinventory.htm.
Robinson-Whelen, S., Kim, C., MacCallum, R. C., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. C. (1997).
Distinguishing optimism from pessimism in older adults: Is it more important to be
optimistic or not to be pessimistic? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,
1345–1353.
Scheier, M. R., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and
implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219–247.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1990). Learned optimism. New York: Basic Books.
Vaillant, G. E. (1977). Adaptation to life. New York: Basic Books.
Vaillant, G. E. (2002). Aging well. New York: Little-Brown.
Vaillant, G. E., & Mukamal, K. (2001). Successful aging. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 158, 839–847.
Vaillant, G. E., & Vaillant, C. O. (1990). Natural history of male psychological health,
XII: A 45-year study of predictors of successful aging at age 65. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 147, 31–37.
Vickers, K. S., & Vogeltanz, N. D. (2000). Dispositional optimism as a predictor of
depressive symptoms over time. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 259–272.
Direct reprint requests to:
Derek M. Isaacowitz
Department of Psychology
Brandeis University
MS 062
Waltham, MA 02454-9110
e-mail: [email protected]