Abstract
Character strengths represent positive durable attributes of individuals, and their deployment is hypothesized to positively affect mood and well-being. Furthermore, strengths deployment may serve as a mood-repair strategy which promotes growth. Close relationships, being potential facilitators of personal growth, were hypothesized to amplify these two effects. These hypotheses were examined in a quasi-experimental diary study. Participants (N = 150) completed daily measures of strengths deployment and mood. They were randomly assigned to a relationship-exercise condition (writing a daily note to a loved one), or to one of two control conditions. Previous-day strengths deployment was associated with more positive daily mood, and previous-day adverse mood predicted increased strengths deployment. The first effect seemed to be somewhat stronger in the relationship-exercise condition. These results highlight positive daily effect of strengths deployment, demonstrate the use of strengths to combat adverse mood, and suggest that close relationships enhance the positive effects of strengths deployment.
Notes
1. ANOVAs conducted to examine differences in daily reports of mood and strengths deployment after writing to different relationship partners showed no significant effects. Relationship contexts which appeared in less than 3% of the notes were not included in this analysis, for statistical reasons.
2. When the analysis was conducted without the interaction factor as a predictor (only previous-day strengths deployment, previous-day mood and group were entered as independent variables), the positive effect of previous-day strengths deployment was maintained, but the group effect was not significant. These results were taken into account when interpreting the findings.
3. When the analysis was conducted without the interaction factor as a predictor (only previous-day strengths deployment, previous-day mood and group were entered as independent variables), the positive effect of previous-day mood was maintained, but the group effect was not significant. These results were taken into account when interpreting the findings.