Wenjie Duan1, Yuhang Wang2. 1. Department of Sociology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, People's Republic of China. duan.w@whu.edu.cn. 2. Department of Sociology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Studies that focus on the development of the typology of individual strength profiles are limited. Thus, this study aimed to determine strength profiles with different health outcomes based on the Three-Dimensional Inventory of Character Strengths (TICS). METHODS: The TICS was used to measure three-dimensional strengths: caring, inquisitiveness, and self-control. A total of 3536 community participants (1322 males and 2214 females with ages ranging from 17 to 50, M = 23.96, SD = 5.13) completed the TICS. A subsample (n = 853; female = 68.2%, male = 31.8%) was further required to complete the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale and Flourishing Scale. A latent profile analysis (LPA) was conducted in the total sample to identify the latent strength profiles. Then, a three-step method was implemented to compare the mental health outcomes between strength profiles in the subsample. RESULTS: The LPA helped determine two subgroups based on the entire sample: the at-strengths group (high scores on all dimensions) and the at-risk group (low scores on all dimensions). As expected, the at-strengths group had less significant negative emotional symptoms (at-strengths group = 0.57, at-risk group = 0.83, χ2 = 33.54, p < .001) and had better psychological well-being (at-strengths group = 5.81, at-risk group = 4.64, χ2 = 276.64, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified two character strength profiles with different health outcomes. Specifically, populations with low-character strengths (caring, inquisitiveness, and self-control) were more likely to demonstrate poor mental health outcomes. Our findings also showed that a particular trait subtype can be considered in identifying high-risk populations and further implementing targeted strength-based interventions.
PURPOSE: Studies that focus on the development of the typology of individual strength profiles are limited. Thus, this study aimed to determine strength profiles with different health outcomes based on the Three-Dimensional Inventory of Character Strengths (TICS). METHODS: The TICS was used to measure three-dimensional strengths: caring, inquisitiveness, and self-control. A total of 3536 community participants (1322 males and 2214 females with ages ranging from 17 to 50, M = 23.96, SD = 5.13) completed the TICS. A subsample (n = 853; female = 68.2%, male = 31.8%) was further required to complete the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale and Flourishing Scale. A latent profile analysis (LPA) was conducted in the total sample to identify the latent strength profiles. Then, a three-step method was implemented to compare the mental health outcomes between strength profiles in the subsample. RESULTS: The LPA helped determine two subgroups based on the entire sample: the at-strengths group (high scores on all dimensions) and the at-risk group (low scores on all dimensions). As expected, the at-strengths group had less significant negative emotional symptoms (at-strengths group = 0.57, at-risk group = 0.83, χ2 = 33.54, p < .001) and had better psychological well-being (at-strengths group = 5.81, at-risk group = 4.64, χ2 = 276.64, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified two character strength profiles with different health outcomes. Specifically, populations with low-character strengths (caring, inquisitiveness, and self-control) were more likely to demonstrate poor mental health outcomes. Our findings also showed that a particular trait subtype can be considered in identifying high-risk populations and further implementing targeted strength-based interventions.