Psychological Studies

, Volume 55, Issue 2, pp 151–158 | Cite as

Empirical validation of values in action-inventory of strengths (VIA-IS) in Indian context

Research in Progress


This study uses self-report measures completed by one hundred and twenty three (123) undergraduate technology students to investigate the validity of Peterson and Seligman’s (2004) classification system of 24 character strengths embodied in six core virtues. Using exploratory factor analyses we found, that an exact convergence of the character strengths was explicitly absent with the six-virtues. In our study, a five-factor solution was more comprehensive and well representing the resultant factor loadings upon analyzing the data which is further compared to a similar empirical study available for analyzing structural dynamics. In this paper, we have discussed the five-factor solution and renamed the dimensions to show a legitimate picture of the classification system, which requires further justification, and in addition, advocates reanalysis and reinterpretation of the originally propounded values in action (VIA) classification as a recommendation for future research.


Positive psychology Character strengths Virtues Self-report measure 


  1. American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statisti-cal manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Biswas-Diener R (2006). From the equator to the North Pole: A study of character strengths, Journal of Happiness Studies, 7:293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cawley MJ, Martin JE & Johnson JA (2000). A virtues approach to personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(5):997–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Csikszentmihalyi M, & Csikszentmihalyi IS (2006). A life worth living: Contributions to positive psychology. Oxford Univer-sity Press Inc.Google Scholar
  5. Dahlsgaard K, Peterson C & Seligman MEP (2005). Shared virtue: The convergence of valued human strengths across culture and history. Review of General Psychology, 9(3):203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gable SL & Haidt J (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? General Review of Psychology, 9(2):103–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Greenberger E, Josselson R, Knerr C & Knerr B (1975). The measurement and structure of psychosocial maturity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 4(2):127–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Linley PA, Maltby J, Wood AM, Joseph S, Harrington S, Peterson C, Park N & Seligman MEP (2007). Character strengths in the United Kingdom: The VIA Inventory of Strengths. Personality and Individual Differences, 43:341–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. MacDonald C, Bore M & Munro D (2008). Values in action scale and the Big 5: An empirical indication of structure. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(4):787–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McCrae RR & John OP (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2):175–215.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Park N, Peterson C & Seligman MEP (2004). Strengths of character and well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(5):603–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Peterson C & Seligman MEP (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. DC: American Psycho-logical Association. New York: Washington, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Ryff CD & Singer B (1996). Psychological well-being: Meaning, measurement, and implications for psychotherapy research. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 65:14–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Seligman M (2002). Authentic happiness. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. Singh K & Choubisa R (2009). Psychometric properties of Hindi translated version of values in action inventory of strengths. Journal of Indian Health Psychology, 4(1):65–76.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Academy of Psychology (NAOP) India 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Humanities and Social SciencesIndian Institute of Technology DelhiHauz KhasIndia

Personalised recommendations