J Happiness Stud (2010) 11:7193

DOI 10.1007/s10902-008-9123-4
RESEARCH PAPER

Psychological Strengths and Cognitive Vulnerabilities:

Are They Two Ends of the Same Continuum or Do They
Have Independent Relationships with Well-being
and Ill-being?
Veronika Huta Lance Hawley

Published online: 23 October 2008

! Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract Research programs examining psychological strengths and vulnerabilities have

remained largely separate, making it difficult to determine the relative contributions of
strengths and vulnerabilities to well-being. Two studies (241 normals, 54 depressed outpatients) compared certain psychological strengths (Transcendence subscales, Values In
Action Inventory of Strengths) and cognitive vulnerabilities (Dysfunctional Attitudes
Scale). In multiple regression, strengths usually related more to positive well-beinglife
satisfaction, positive affect, vitality, meaning, elevating experiencethough vulnerabilities also related to the first three variables; vulnerabilities related more to illbeing
negative affect, depressionthough hope, humor, enthusiasm, and forgiveness sometimes
also showed relationships. Pre-treatment strengths (hope, spirituality, appreciation of
beauty and excellence) predicted post-treatment recovery from depression; cognitive
vulnerabilities did not. Strengths and vulnerabilities sometimes interacted, with strengths
weakening the relationship between vulnerabilities and well-being. Our findings indicate
that strengths and vulnerabilities are not mere opposites (correlating at most moderately)
and deserve study as distinct contributors to well-being.
Keywords Strength of character ! Dysfunctional attitude ! Predisposition !
Well-being ! Major depression ! Recovery

Recently, there has been tremendous growth in research on character strengths and their
role in personal well-beingvariables such as hope, gratitude, and spirituality have been
associated with a variety of well-being outcomes (e.g., Emmons et al. 1998; Emmons and
V. Huta (&)
School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, 145 Jean-Jacques Lussier Street, Ottawa,
ON, Canada K1N 6N5
e-mail: vhuta@uottawa.ca
L. Hawley
Clarke Division, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 250 College Street, Toronto,
ON, Canada M5T 1R8

123

72

V. Huta, L. Hawley

McCullough 2003; Park et al. 2004; Peterson 2006; Peterson et al. 2007; Scheier et al.
2001; Snyder 2000). At the same time, there is a vast and long-standing literature on
individual differences in cognitive vulnerabilitiesvariables such as perfectionism/selfcriticism and excessive need for approval are well known to foster psychological ill-being
(e.g., Antony et al. 1998; Blatt 2004; Blatt et al. 1995; Blatt and Zuroff 1992; Brown and
Beck 2002; Hawley et al. 2006; Zuroff et al. 2004). To date, these two bodies of literature
have remained largely separate. It is therefore unclear how psychological strengths and
cognitive vulnerabilities relate to each other, and what their independent relationships are
with positive well-being and ill-being. The purpose of the present article was to address
these two questions.
A review of the existing literature suggests what pattern of results might be expected.
Previous research examining cognitive vulnerabilities has largely focused on negative
outcomes, such as negative affect and depression (Beck et al. 1983; Flett and Hewitt 2002;
Scher et al. 2005). In contrast, the majority of research on character strengths has focused
on positive well-being such as life satisfaction, positive affect, and self-esteem (Peterson
and Seligman 2004), though there has been some work on their links with ill-being (see
review below). If we assume that these two literatures were guided by clinical experience
and by other expert observation, then we would expect that vulnerabilities will indeed
relate mainly to ill-being, while strengths will primarily relate to positive well-being. Also,
a number of studies have examined neuroticism and extraversion simultaneously in relation to well-being. The operationalization of these traits includes characteristics that are
strengths and vulnerabilities, such as activity/enthusiasm as a facet of extraversion, and
self-consciousness/self-criticism as a facet of neuroticism. Studies comparing neuroticism
and extraversion have often found that neuroticism was more related to ill-being, while
extraversion was more related to positive well-being (e.g., Costa and McCrae 1980;
McCrae and Costa 1991). Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that the psychological
and brain mechanisms underlying positive affect and negative affect are to some degree
distinct (Davidson and Irwin 1999; Davidson et al. 2000; Diener and Emmons 1984;
Diener and Iran-Nejad 1986; Elliot and Thrash 2002; Watson and Tellegen 1985). This
lends further support to the idea that positive and negative well-being may have different
correlates, and raises the possibility that strengths primarily interact with the mechanisms
involving positive experiences, while vulnerabilities primarily interact with negative
experiences.
Based on these considerations, we had the following predictions for the studies presented here: (1) strengths and vulnerabilities will not correlate strongly enough to suggest
that they are simply opposite ends of the same continuum; (2) strengths will more consistently and more strongly have independent relationships with positive well-being than
will vulnerabilities; (3) vulnerabilities will more consistently and more strongly have
independent relationships with ill-being than will strengths.
There were two additional topics we wished to investigate in this research. First, one of
our samples consisted of clinically depressed outpatients whom we assessed before and
after they received a standardized cognitive behavior therapy intervention. We were
therefore in a position to study the power of pre-treatment strengths and vulnerabilities to
predict post-treatment reduction of depression symptoms. Quite a few studies have
examined the influence of pre-treatment cognitive vulnerabilities or changes in cognitive
vulnerabilities early in treatment on the level of symptoms later in treatment or at the end
of treatmentthe majority have found a significant effect (Blatt et al. 1995, 1998;
DeRubeis et al. 1990; Hamilton and Dobson 2002; Hawley et al. 2006; Shahar et al. 2003),
although a few have found no effect (Jarrett et al. 2007; Kwon and Oei 2003; Otto et al.

123

Strengths versus Vulnerabilities

73

2007). We therefore hypothesized that pre-treatment vulnerabilities would predict degree

of depression recovery at post-treatment. We also expected strengths to play a predictive
rolewhile we expected strengths to relate less to initial depression severity than vulnerabilities would, we thought that strengths may play some role in depression recovery, to
the degree that recovery represents active movement towards positive well-being.
Although little research has examined the impact of strengths on depression reduction in a
therapy setting, several studies have shown that: character strengths predict a decrease in
depression symptoms over time (Braam et al. 1997, 2004; Nezu et al. 1988; Orcutt 2006);
interventions aimed at promoting strengths can significantly reduce depression symptoms
(Cheavens et al. 2006; Gillham 2000; Reed and Enright 2006; Seligman et al. 2005, 2006);
and strengths can reduce the toll of mental illness on life satisfaction (Peterson et al. 2006).
Thus, we expected both pre-treatment vulnerabilities and strengths to predict post-treatment depression improvement, though we did not have a prediction about the relative
magnitudes of these influences.
The final topic we wished to address concerned the interaction of strengths and
vulnerabilities when predicting well-being. Little work has specifically focused on this
question. Strengths and vulnerabilities might interact in different ways: (1) vulnerabilities
may undermine the benefits of strengths, such that strengths have weaker links with wellbeing among highly vulnerable individuals; (2) alternatively, strengths may be especially
important in cases of high vulnerability, such that strengths have stronger links with wellbeing among highly vulnerable individuals. We planned to test these competing hypotheses
in our studies.
Psychological strengths were assessed using the transcendence scales of the Values in
Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS) (Peterson and Seligman 2001, 2004), which is the
most comprehensive cross-culturally validated measure of psychological strengths. The
VIA-IS measures a total of 24 psychological strengths and virtues. However, in one of the
populations we planned to study, a clinically depressed sample, we could not assess all 24
VIA-IS strengths due to time constraints. We therefore focused on a subset of strengths
throughout this articlethe subset that Seligman (2002) identified as representing a
capacity for transcendence, i.e., having a broader perspective beyond immediate concerns.
The transcendence strengths are hope, enthusiasm, humor, gratitude, appreciation of beauty
and excellence, spirituality, and forgiveness. We chose the transcendence group because it
includes the majority of strengths most related to positive well-being in past research,
including hope, enthusiasm, gratitude, and spirituality (Park et al. 2004; Peterson et al.
2007; Peterson 2006). In addition, more often than any other cluster of VIA-IS strengths,
the strengths in the transcendence cluster have been linked with depression and negative
affect (see review below). We might also expect a relationship between transcendence and
ill-being from a conceptual standpointnegative affect and depression are related to a
narrow and rigid attentional focus, which is the opposite of a transcendent perspective
(Compton 2000; Ingram 1990; Nolen-Hoeksema 2000; Seligman 1990).
We assessed psychological vulnerabilities using the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale
(DAS) (Weissman and Beck 1978), the most widely used measure of cognitive vulnerability, which has been studied in relation to a variety of mental disorders, most often major
depression (e.g., Brown and Beck 2002; DeRubeis et al. 1990; Golden et al. 2006; Rector
2004; Wright et al. 2005; Zuroff et al. 1999. The DAS measures individual differences in
various dysfunctional tendencies, including perfectionism and excessive need for approval
from others (Cane et al. 1986; Imber et al. 1990).
We tested our hypotheses in two populations, using several different well-being variables. In our first study, we investigated psychologically healthy individuals to compare

123

74

V. Huta, L. Hawley

strengths and vulnerabilities in relation to several positive well-being measures, as well as

negative affect and depression. The positive outcomes included those most commonly
studiedlife satisfaction, positive affect, and self-esteem. They also included several other
outcomes, in the interest of assessing well-being more broadly: vitality, a positive feeling
of aliveness and energy (Ryan and Frederick 1997); a sense of meaning as a well-being
outcome (Huta and Ryan 2008); and elevating experience, which includes awe, moral
elevation and inspiration, and a sense of connection with a greater whole (Huta and Ryan
2008). All three of these additional well-being variables have proven to be distinct from
more routinely assessed concepts, and have contributed important information about the
well-being benefits of various individual differences (Huta and Ryan 2008; Huta and
Grouzet 2008; McGregor and Little 1998; Nix et al. 1999; Prosnick 1997; Ryan and
Frederick 1997). In our second study, we expanded our analysis of negative outcomes by
following clinically depressed clients and measuring their depression severity both before
and after they received therapy.
In addition to testing our general hypotheses about strengths, vulnerabilities, and wellbeing, the present research permitted us to address several specific gaps in the literature,
regarding zero-order correlations between certain well-being variables and certain
strengths or vulnerabilities. While the transcendence strengths have been related to life
satisfaction, positive affect, and self-esteem (Peterson and Seligman 2004), less is known
about their links with vitality, meaning, and elevating experience, though a few of these
links have been established. Vitality is related to enthusiasm (Peterson and Seligman
2004), meaning has often been linked with spirituality (e.g., Park 2006; Steger and Frazier
2005; Wong 1998), and aspects of elevating experience have been related to both spirituality (Emmons 2000; Keltner and Haidt 2003; Underwood and Teresi 2002; Seidlitz
et al. 2002) and appreciation of beauty and excellence (Haidt 2000, 2003; Keltner and
Haidt 2003; Peterson and Seligman 2004). However, little is known about the remaining
links between the transcendence strengths and vitality, meaning, and elevating experience.
Depression and negative affect have been linked with most of the transcendence
strengths, though little work has addressed their links with appreciation of beauty and
excellence. Depression and negative affect have clearly shown negative links with hope/
optimism (e.g., Abramson et al. 1989; Chang 2001; Chang and DeSimone 2001; Cheavens
et al. 2006; Gillham 2000), spirituality (e.g., Baetz et al. 2002; Braam et al. 2004; Kendler
et al. 2003; Mofidi et al. 2006; Park et al. 1990; Smith et al. 2003), forgiveness (e.g.,
Brown 2003; Lawler-Row and Piferi 2006; Orcutt 2006; Reed and Enright 2006;
Thompson et al. 2005), and humor (e.g., Kuiper et al. 2004; Martin et al. 2003; Nezu et al.
1988; Thorson et al. 1997). A number of studies have shown negative links of depression
and negative affect with gratitude (McCullough et al. 2002; Seligman et al. 2005, 2006;
Wood et al. 2007). Also, though little research has explicitly studied the correlations of
depression and negative affect with enthusiasm, the related concept of low interest and
pleasure in life is a diagnostic symptom of depression (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders, DSM-IV-TR).
Perfectionism, need for approval, and dysfunctional attitudes in general have clearly
been linked to depression and negative affect, but less is known about their relationship
with certain forms of positive well-being. These vulnerabilities have often been linked with
low self-esteem (e.g., Ashby and Rice 2002; Flett and Hewitt 2002; Grzegorek et al. 2004;
Rice et al. 1998; Stumpf and Parker 2000). In addition, a number of studies have shown
links with low positive affect (Besser et al. 2004; Dunkley et al. 2003, 2006; Frost et al.
1993; Kobori and Tanno 2005; Molnar et al. 2006; Saboonchi and Lundh 2003) and low
life satisfaction (Chang 2000; Gilman and Ashby 2003; Gilman et al. 2005; Rice and

123

Strengths versus Vulnerabilities

75

Ashby 2007). However, no research has been conducted on the relationship of dysfunctional attitudes with vitality, meaning, or any of the aspects of elevating experience. In
sum, our research was an opportunity to more fully address the links between strengths,
vulnerabilities, and different forms of well-being.

1 Study 1: Strengths versus Vulnerabilities in a Normal Sample

Our first study was conducted in a non-depressed sample and focused on a variety of
positive well-being variables as well as on negative affect and depression.
1.1 Method
1.1.1 Participants
Participants were 241 undergraduates at a private university in the northeast U.S. Their
mean age was 19.61 years (SD = 1.45); 66% were female; and 66% were White, with
17% Asian, 6% Hispanic, 5% Black, 3% East Indian/Pakistani, 1% Middle Eastern, and
1% of mixed ethnic origin.
1.1.2 Procedure
Participants completed the study as a 30-min web-based survey. The survey was one of
many studies that participants could choose from on a standardized web-based system, to
obtain credit in psychology courses.
1.1.3 Measures
1.1.3.1 Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS); Peterson and Seligman
2001) This measure was developed to assess psychological strengths that are valued
across different cultures. Each strength is represented by a 10-item scale. We assessed the
seven transcendence strengths: enthusiasm (Cronbachs alpha a = .83 in the present
study), hope (a = .84), humor (a = .87), gratitude (a = .84), appreciation of beauty and
excellence (a = .85), spirituality (a = .88), and forgiveness (a = .87). Participants are
asked to describe what you are like. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from
very much unlike me to very much like me.
1.1.3.2 Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale (DAS; Weissman and Beck 1978) This scale was
originally developed to assess cognitive vulnerabilities that predispose people to depression and has since been used in research on depression and many other disorders. Form A
of the DAS was used in this research, which has 40 items and has demonstrated good
psychometric properties (Dobson and Breiter 1983; Weissman and Beck 1978). There are
two subscales that researchers often employ, originally derived by principal components
analysis with Varimax rotation: a 15-item subscale measuring perfectionism (a tendency to
engage in an overly harsh, self-critical style when failing to meet self-imposed standards),
and an 11-item subscale measuring need for approval (a tendency to place excessive
importance on other peoples judgments) (Imber et al. 1990). In the current research, the
full 40-item DAS Total scale as well as the perfectionism and need for approval subscales

123

76

V. Huta, L. Hawley

were employed. The items were scored on a 7-point scale from totally disagree to
totally agree. In the present study, Cronbachs alpha for the DAS Total was .93, for
perfectionism was .91, and for need for approval was .80.
1.1.3.3 Beck Depression Inventory, Second Edition (BDI-II; Beck et al. 1996) This is the
most widely used measure of depression severity. It is a self-report questionnaire consisting of 21 multiple-choice questions about key depression symptoms such as sadness,
pessimism, and loss of pleasure, rated from 0 (absence of symptom) to 3 (severe manifestation of symptom). We used 20 of the items, omitting one item inquiring about suicidal
ideation, because this research was conducted in a non-clinical setting and there was not
adequate clinical support to deal with reports of suicidality. Participants indicated how they
felt during the past month. The BDI-II has very good psychometric properties (e.g., Beck
et al. 1996; Steer et al. 1997). The alpha for the 20 items in the present study was .89.
1.1.3.4 Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al. 1985) This 5-item scale measures global satisfaction with ones life. Sample items are: I am satisfied with my life
and in most ways, my life is close to my ideal. The scale is rated from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The alpha was .87.
1.1.3.5 Positive Affect and Negative Affect (Diener and Emmons 1984) These were
assessed by a commonly used set of nine items. Positive affect was assessed with happy,
joyful, pleased, and enjoyment/fun; negative affect items was assessed with
unhappy, depressed, worried/anxious, angry/hostile, and frustrated. For these
and all remaining well-being items below, participants were asked to report how you
typically feel. The items were rated from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). Alphas were .86
for positive affect and .82 for negative affect.
1.1.3.6 Self-Esteem (Robins et al. 2001) This was assessed using a well-validated singleitem measure that reads I have high self-esteem, rated from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (very
much true).
1.1.3.7 Subjective Vitality Scale (Bostic et al. 2000) This was assessed using the 6-item
version of the trait Subjective Vitality Scale from Bostic et al. (2000), which omits one
item from the scale originally developed by Ryan and Frederick (1997). The Bostic et al.
(2000) version correlates .98 with the original scale and produces a better-fitting model.
Sample items are: I have energy and spirit, and I feel energized. The items are rated
from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (very much true). The alpha was .92.
1.1.3.8 Meaning (Huta and Grouzet 2008) This concept was assessed as a well-being
outcome state rather than a way of life (e.g., having a framework for interpreting events,
having a purpose) (Huta and Ryan 2008). It was assessed using a 12-item scale by Huta and
Grouzet (2008) which consists of three facets: how meaningful one feels that ones
activities and experiences have been, how valuable one feels they have been, and how
broad one feels that their implications have been. The items are meaningful, full of
significance, making a lot of sense to me, I could see how they all added up,
valuable, precious, something I could treasure, dear to me, playing an
important role in some broader picture, contributing to various aspects of myself, I
could see where they fit into the bigger picture, and they contributed to my community

123

Strengths versus Vulnerabilities

77

or the broader world. The items are rated from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). Huta and
Grouzet (2008) showed that all 12 items load onto a single factor that is distinct from
factors representing other forms of well-being, including positive affect, negative affect,
life satisfaction, self-esteem, vitality, and elevating experience. The alpha in the present
study was .95.
1.1.3.9 Elevating Experience (Huta and Grouzet 2008) This conceptwhich includes
feelings of awe, inspiration and moral elevation, and connection with a greater whole
was proposed by Huta and Ryan (2008) as an important form of well-being that provides
valuable information about the benefits of certain individual differences. We used the 12item version from Huta and Grouzet (2008), who showed that the items load onto a single
factor that is distinct from factors representing other forms of well-being, including
positive affect, negative affect, life satisfaction, self-esteem, vitality, and meaning. The
items are in awe, in wonder, deeply appreciating, profoundly touched by experiences, emotionally moved, inspired, enriched, spiritually uplifted, part of
some greater entity, part of something greater than myself, connected with a greater
whole, and like I was in the presence of something grand. They are rated from 1 (not at
all) to 7 (extremely). The alpha in the present study was .91.
1.2 Results and Discussion
Of the 33 analyses examining links between the demographic variables and the DAS
subscales, the DAS Total score, the seven transcendence scales, and their composite, 28
(85%) were non-significant. The exceptions were as follows: age was negatively related to
humor (r = -.14, p \ .05); females reported higher gratitude than males (t = 2.01,
p \ .05); and Whites reported higher humor (t = 2.63, p \ .01), lower spirituality
(t = 3.36, p \ .01), and lower perfectionism (t = 2.26, p \ .05) than Non-Whites.
The left half of Table 1 shows the Study 1 zero-order correlations between the two DAS
subscales, the DAS total score which served as a proxy for vulnerabilities in general, the
seven VIA-IS transcendence scales, and a composite of the transcendence scales which
Table 1 Zero-order correlations of strengths and vulnerabilities
Study 1normal sample
Perfectionism Need
approval

Study 2depressed sample

DAS
total

Perfectionism Need
approval

DAS
total

Hope

-.38**

-.26**

-.37**

-.14

-.06

-.13

Enthusiasm

-.34**

-.27**

-.37**

-.08

-.12

-.12

Humor

-.37**

-.23**

-.39**

-.06

-.08

-.13

Gratitude

-.36**

-.16*

-.37**

-.09

.02

-.03

Apprec. Beauty & Excell.

-.22**

-.12

-.24**

-.09

-.19

-.10

Spirituality

-.24**

-.03

-.19**

-.30*

-.17

-.22

Forgiveness

-.31**

-.15*

-.28**

-.26

-.22

-.20

Transcendence
composite

-.43**

-.23**

-.42**

-.22

-.17

-.20

Note: Need approval = Need for approval; Apprec. Beauty & Excell. = Appreciation of beauty and
excellence
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01

123

78

V. Huta, L. Hawley

served as a proxy for strengths in general and which was computed by taking the mean
of the seven transcendence scales. A total of 22 of the 24 correlations were significantly
negative, indicating some shared variance between strengths and vulnerabilitiesvulnerabilities may undermine or limit the development of strengths to some extent, or strengths
may provide some resilience against vulnerabilities. However, the correlations were at
most moderate, ranging from -.03 to -.43. Thus, the correlations were not strong enough
to suggest that any of the strengths are simply the opposite of certain vulnerabilities. This
provided one form of evidence for the distinctiveness of strengths and vulnerabilities.
Furthermore, an exploratory principal components analysis of the seven transcendence
scales and the perfectionism and need for approval scales showed that two factors had
eigenvalues of 1 or greater, and together accounted for 62% of the variance. The solution
was Varimax rotated and the seven strength scales and the two vulnerability scales separated cleanly onto the two factors.
Table 2 shows the zero-order correlations between the strengths and the well-being and
ill-being variables. All of the transcendence strengths correlated with each positive wellbeing variable. Thus, we replicated past research showing their links with life satisfaction,
positive affect, and self-esteem, as well as the links between vitality and enthusiasm,
between meaning and spirituality, and between elevating experience and both spirituality
and appreciation of beauty and excellence. In addition, our data revealed that vitality,
meaning, and elevating experience related to all of the other transcendence strengths.
In Table 2, the strengths of hope, enthusiasm, humor, gratitude, and forgiveness related
negatively to both negative affect and depression, replicating past research showing their
links with ill-being. The one result that differed from past research was the absence of a
relationship between ill-being and spirituality. We are unsure why this was a null result.
Perhaps it occurred because of the particular constellation of items on the VIA-IS spirituality scalepast findings have varied depending on the elements of spirituality
measured, such as public versus private spirituality (Baetz et al. 2002, 2004; Bosworth
et al. 2003; Braam et al. 2004). Past studies have not examined a link between ill-being
and appreciation of beauty and excellenceour finding suggests that the two constructs are
unrelated.
Table 2 also shows the zero-order correlations between vulnerabilities and well-being.
DAS vulnerabilities correlated positively with both measures of ill-being, as in past
research. The vulnerabilities also had significant negative relationships with each measure
of positive well-being. Past studies have already shown that vulnerabilities relate to life
satisfaction, positive affect, and self-esteem. However, little research has studied their links
with vitality, meaning, or elevating experienceour findings show that vulnerabilities
relate to these well-being states as well.
The findings in Table 3 address our general hypotheses about the relative roles of
strengths and vulnerabilities in well-being. The first eight rows show the partial correlations of strengths with well-being when controlling for the DAS total score. These partial
correlations are estimates of how much strengths relate to well-being beyond the role of
vulnerabilities. About 43 of the 48 links between positive well-being and strengths
remained significant, though appreciation of beauty and excellence and spirituality ceased
to relate to life satisfaction or self-esteem, and forgiveness ceased to relate to life satisfaction. Thus, strengths usually had relationships with positive well-being that extended
over and above the relationship that vulnerabilities had with positive well-being. This
supported our expectation that strengths would have a unique relationship with positive
outcomes that cannot be reduced to the role of vulnerabilities. Four well-being variables
consistently had unique links with all of the transcendence strengthspositive affect,

123

-.37**

-.24**

.26**

.21**

-.39**

-.33**

-.31**

.45**

.29**

.15*

.53**

-.32**

-.28**

-.29**

.63**

.33**

.37**

.37**

.48**

.48**

-.25**

-.19**

-.18**

.50**

.24**

.29**

.30**

.46**

.35**

.55**

.47**

-.33**

.35**
.46**

-.23**

.46**

-.33**

-.26**

-.12

-.10

-.23**

-.34**

-.31**

-.16*

-.18**

.62**

.29**

.53**

.48**

.54**

.33**

.54**

-.37**

.43**

.21**

.48**

-.33**

-.19**

-.09

-.11

-.24**

-.35**

-.40**

-.24

.46**

.30*

.40**

-.24

-.19

-.16

-.01

-.12

-.19

-.20

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01

Note: Life Sat. = Life satisfaction; Pos. Aff. = Positive affect; S-esteem = Self-esteem; Elevating = Elevating experience; Neg. Aff. = Negative affect; BDI-II = Beck
Depression Inventory II measure of depression; Apprec. Beauty & Excell. = Appreciation of beauty and excellence; Study 2Depr. Sample = Study 2depressed sample

-.33**

DAS total

-.35**

-.28**

-.28**

.55**

.44**

Perfectionism

.33**

.20**

Forgiveness

Transcendence composite

Need for approval

.27**

.19**

.20**

Apprec. Beauty & Excell.

Spirituality

.40**
.37**

.71**

.51**

.54**

.43**

.38**

.41**

Humor

Gratitude

.49**

.52**

.50**

.57**

.47**

BDI-II

.49**

Neg. Aff.

Hope

Elevating

Enthusiasm

Meaning

BDI-II

Vitality

Pos. Aff.

Life Sat.

S-esteem

Study 2Depr. Sample

Study 1Normal sample

Table 2 Zero-order correlations of well-being variables with strengths and vulnerabilities

Strengths versus Vulnerabilities

79

123

123

-.22**

-.13

.18**

-.26**

-.26**

-.19**

.32**

.20**

.06

.11

-.09

-.14

-.04

.56**

.29**

.31**

.31**

.38**

.48**

-.14*

-.16*

-.07

.44**

.16*

.23**

.26**

.38**

.28**

.04

-.06

.09

.59**

.25**

.51**

.45**

.48**

.25**

-.18*

.40**

.29**

.41**

-.09

-.17*

.00

.09

-.01

-.23**

.34**

.13

.40**

-.19**

-.09

-.01

-.02

-.10

-.09

.51**

.33*

.46**

-.10

-.06

-.06

.12

-.09

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01

Note: Life Sat. = Life satisfaction; Pos. Aff. = Positive affect; S-esteem = Self-esteem; Elevating = Elevating experience; Neg. Aff. = Negative affect; BDI-II = Beck
Depression Inventory II measure of depression; Apprec. Beauty & Excell. = Appreciation of beauty and excellence; Study 2Depr. Sample = Study 2depressed sample

-.26**

DAS total

-.21**

-.19**

.33**

-.25**

.44**

.12

Forgiveness

Transcendence composite

Perfectionism

.23**

.12

Need for approval

.18**

.10

Spirituality

.23**

.31**

-.09

-.15

Apprec. Beauty & Excell.

.30**

-.31**

-.25**

.47**

-.12

-.13

.30**

.51**

.43**

.31**

.50**

.42**

Humor

.66**

.43**

Gratitude

.38**

.41**

.42**

.47**

.37**

BDI-II

.38**

Neg. Aff.

Hope

Elevating

Enthusiasm

Meaning

BDI-II

Vitality

Pos. Aff.

Life Sat.

S-esteem

Study 2Depr. Sample

Study 1Normal sample

Table 3 Partial correlations of well-being variables with strengths (controlling for the DAS total) and vulnerabilities (controlling for the transcendence composite)

80
V. Huta, L. Hawley

Strengths versus Vulnerabilities

81

vitality, meaning, and elevating experience. The links with elevating experience were
especially strong. Thus, the less commonly studied outcomesvitality, meaning, and
elevating experienceproved to be important markers of psychological strengths and
virtues.
While the strengths retained most of their links with positive well-being when controlling for vulnerabilities, exactly half of their correlations with ill-being ceased to be
significant. More specifically, gratitude, appreciation of beauty and excellence, and spirituality did not relate to the ill-being variables beyond vulnerabilities. Nevertheless, several
strengths did show unique relationships with at least one of the ill-being measureshope,
enthusiasm, and humor related to depression, and humor and forgiveness related to negative affect. While each of these strengths have shown zero-order correlations with distress
in past research, our findings demonstrate that they retain these links even when controlling
for well-known vulnerabilities. These results strengthen the argument that certain strengths
warrant attention in the distress literature, and that an exclusive focus on vulnerabilities
would be incomplete.
The last three rows of Table 3 show the partial correlations of DAS vulnerabilities with
well-being when controlling for the transcendence composite. These partial correlations
are estimates of how much vulnerabilities relate to well-being beyond the role of strengths.
While five of the six links with ill-being remained significant, eight of the 18 links with
positive well-being ceased to be significant. Thus, we found support for our predictions that
strengths would have more consistent unique relationships with positive well-being, while
vulnerabilities would have more consistent unique relationships with ill-being. Vulnerabilities no longer had unique relationships with vitality or elevating experience, though
they did show some unique relationships with life satisfaction, positive affect, self-esteem,
and meaning. This raised the possibility that vulnerabilities may undermine some positive
outcomes and are worthy of study in the positive well-being literature, where they are
usually ignored. Our finding that need for approval did not show a unique relationship with
one of the ill-being variables, depression, was unexpected. Our pattern of findings did,
however, parallel most past research in the sense that perfectionism was the vulnerability
that related more strongly to distress (e.g., Blatt et al. 1995, 1998).
To compare the unique contributions of strengths and vulnerabilities numerically, we
conducted multiple regressions with the transcendence composite and the DAS total as the
independent variables and each well-being variable as the dependent variable, with all
variables standardized. We then used a t-test to compared the regression coefficients for the
transcendence composite and the DAS total, dropping negative signs so that only the
magnitudes of the coefficients were compared. The formula used to compare the coefficients for variables A and B was as follows:
Coefficient A # Coefficient B
t pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
VarianceCoefficient A VarianceCoefficient B # 2CovarianceCoefficients AB

Compared to the DAS total, the transcendence composite had significantly greater unique
relationships with all of the positive well-being variables except self-esteem: life satisfaction (t = 2.66, p \ .01), positive affect (t = 4.38, p \ .01), self-esteem (t = 1.94,
p [ .05), vitality (t = 8.52, p \ .01), meaning (t = 7.31, p \ 01), and elevating experience (t = 9.20, p \ .01). Compared to the transcendence composite, The DAS total had
significantly greater unique relationships with both ill-being variables: negative affect
(t = 3.76, p \ .01), and depression (t = 2.47, p \ .05). This supported our prediction that

123

82

V. Huta, L. Hawley

strengths would have greater unique relationships with positive outcomes, while vulnerabilities would have greater unique relationships with negative outcomes.
Finally, we tested whether strengths and vulnerabilities interact when predicting wellbeing. The DAS total score was again used as an estimate of vulnerabilities in general
and the transcendence composite was used as an estimate of strengths in general.
Multiple regressions were conducted, where each well-being variable standardized was
regressed on the DAS total standardized, the transcendence composite standardized, and
the product of the DAS total standardized and the transcendence composite standardized.
The interaction term was significant in the case of self-esteem (unstandardized B = .14,
p \ .05), meaning (B = .12, p \ .05), and depression (B = -.19, p \ .01), but not in the
case of life satisfaction (B = .00, p [ .05), positive affect (B = .08, p [ .05), vitality
(B = .05, p [ .05), elevating experience (B = .01, p [ .05), or negative affect (B = -.04,
p [ .05).
To further investigate the interactions that were significant, we used a median split on
the transcendence composite to divide the sample into two groups, and then regressed each
well-being variable standardized on the DAS total score standardized. We report the results
separately for the positive well-being variables (self-esteem and meaning) and the ill-being
variable (depression), as the patterns of results were slightly different. Among participants
who were low on the transcendence composite, DAS vulnerabilities had a significant
negative impact on self-esteem (B = -.52, p \ .01) and meaning (B = -.30, p \ .01).
However, among those who were high on transcendence strengths, DAS vulnerabilities had
no impact on self-esteem (B = -.11, p [ .05) or meaning (B = .05, p [ .05). Thus, for
these positive outcomes, strengths and vulnerabilities interacted such that a high degree of
character strengths eliminated the negative impact of vulnerabilities. Conversely, a high
degree of vulnerability did not entirely undermine the beneficial effects of strengthsin
fact, strengths showed their greatest benefit among those who were high on vulnerability.
We found this when we regressed the well-being variables standardized on the transcendence composite standardized: strengths significantly predicted self-esteem and meaning
both when the individual was below the median on the DAS total (B = .23, p \ .01, and
B = .36, p \ .01, respectively) and above the median (B = .54, p \ .01, and B = .63,
p \ .01, respectively), and the effects were particularly strong for individuals who were
high on vulnerabilities.
Parallel analyses were carried out for the negative outcome of depression. DAS vulnerabilities had an impact whether people were low on strengths (B = .62, p \ .01) or
high on strengths (B = .20, p \ .05), though high strengths did weaken the link between
vulnerabilities and depression to some degree. Transcendence strengths only predicted
reduced depression when vulnerabilities were high (B = -.42, p \ .01), but not when
vulnerabilities were low (B = -.03, p [ .05).
Overall, our findings demonstrate that strengths and vulnerabilities do in some cases
interact. A high degree of strengths eliminated the relationship between vulnerabilities and
the positive outcomes of self-esteem and meaning. High strengths also reduced the link
between vulnerability and depression, but did not eliminate it, reinforcing the conclusion
that vulnerabilities play a key role in ill-being. On the other hand, a high degree of
vulnerability did not undermine the relationship between strengths and self-esteem,
meaning, or depression. On the contrary, it was in the case of high vulnerability that
strengths had their greatest relationship with well-being. Though the findings were correlational, they suggest that strengths may immunize people against the detrimental effects
of vulnerabilities, especially when it comes to positive outcomes, while vulnerabilities do

123

Strengths versus Vulnerabilities

83

not undermine the benefits of strengths. In fact, strengths may be all the more important for
highly vulnerable individuals.

2 Study 2: Strengths versus Vulnerabilities in a Clinically Depressed Sample

While Study 1 examined a healthy population and a variety of positive well-being variables, our second study focused on a clinically depressed population and provided a more
detailed analysis of ill-being. We assessed clients depression severity, DAS vulnerabilities, and VIA-IS transcendence strengths both before and after therapy. Thus, we could
conduct correlational analyses with pre-treatment depression severity as well as longitudinal analyses to predict post-treatment depression reduction.
2.1 Method
2.1.1 Participants
Participants were adult outpatients at the Allan Memorial Hospital in Montreal, Canada
who attended group cognitive behavioral therapy for major depression. Following referral
by a physician, the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID-IV; First et al. 1996)
was administered to clients by trained clinical psychology doctoral students, and a diagnosis was assigned. Clients were excluded from the group therapy if they had ever met a
SCID-IV diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder, Schizoaffective Disorder, Schizophrenia, or
Substance Abuse Disorder. All clients consented to participate in research at the beginning
of their assessment. Of the 76 clients participating in the group therapy, 54 were included
in our analyses because they met the following criteria: (a) their intake score on the BDI-II
was at least 14, the cut-off used to indicate at least mild depression (Beck et al. 1996); (b)
Major Depressive Disorder was their primary diagnosis; and c) they received and completed the questionnaires we planned to analyze. Of the 54 participants, 66% were female,
their mean age was 46.40 years (SD = 12.44); and their mean score on the BDI-II was in
the moderate to severe range (28.53, SD = 8.23).
The cognitive-behavioral group treatment was based on the standardized Mind Over
Mood protocol (Greenberger and Padesky 1995) involving weekly sessions of 2 h each.
Treatment consisted of psychoeducation regarding the nature of depression, behavioral
activation (e.g., engaging in pleasant events), cognitive restructuring, behavioral experiments and action plans, as well as core belief work (e.g., identifying and challenging
entrenched patterns of depressive thinking). These activities were practiced both during
therapy sessions and as homework exercises between sessions. There were four to seven
clients per therapy group and different therapists lead different groups. Data were collected
over 4 years in a total of 12 therapy groups.
2.1.2 Procedure
Prior to the first therapy session and again at termination, clients completed the following
battery of questionnaires.

123

84

V. Huta, L. Hawley

2.1.3 Measures
2.1.3.1 Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS; Peterson and Seligman
2001) We administered the seven transcendence scales of the VIA-IS as in Study 1.
2.1.3.2 Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale (DAS; Weissman and Beck 1978)
was the same as in Study 1.

This measure

2.1.3.3 Beck Depression Inventory, Second Edition (BDI-II; Beck et al. 1996) This
measure was the same as in Study 1, except that clients completed all 21 items, including
the one inquiring about suicidal ideation, and they indicated how they felt during the past
2 weeks, including today rather than during the past month.
2.2 Results and Discussion
The right half of Table 1 shows the Study 2 pre-treatment zero-order correlations between
the DAS subscales, the DAS total score, the VIA-IS scales, and the transcendence composite. While all but two of the correlations in Study 2 appeared smaller than the
corresponding correlations in Study 1, t-tests showed that these differences were not statistically significant, with the exception of the correlations between humor and
perfectionism (z = 2.13, p \ .05) and between gratitude and the DAS total (z = 2.32,
p \ .05). Thus, future research will be needed to determine whether correlations between
strengths and vulnerabilities differ in magnitude across different populations. Nevertheless,
the main hypothesis of interest here was supported: the correlations in Study 2 ranged from
.02 to -.30, providing further evidence that strengths and vulnerabilities are distinct and
cannot be considered opposite ends of a single dimension.
The last column of Table 2 shows the Study 2 pre-treatment zero-order correlations of
depression with VIA-IS strengths and DAS vulnerabilities. None of the correlations with
strengths were significant. This differed from our findings in Study 1, where depression
correlated with hope, enthusiasm, humor, gratitude, and forgiveness. However, t-tests
comparing corresponding correlations in the two studies showed that none of them differed
significantly. Also, the magnitudes of most of the correlations in Study 2 were great
enough that they may have reached significance with a larger sample size. Thus, perhaps
the non-significance of the correlations between depression and strengths was a matter of
sample size. The Study 2 correlations between depression and vulnerabilities were all
significant, as in Study 1, and t-tests showed that none of the corresponding correlations in
the two studies differed significantly. This replicated many past findings that DAS vulnerabilities are related to the severity of major depression.
The last column of Table 3 shows the Study 2 pre-treatment partial correlations of
depression with strengths when controlling for the DAS total score (first eight rows), and
with vulnerabilities when controlling for the transcendence composite (last three rows).
None of the strengths showed a unique relationship with depression. This differed from
Study 1, where hope, enthusiasm, and humor did show unique relationships. Although
t-tests indicated that none of the partial correlations with strengths differed from the
corresponding ones in Study 1, the magnitudes of these partial correlations in Study 2 were
quite small. This raised the possibility that strengths play a weaker role in clinically
significant depression than they do in milder depression symptomsfurther research will
be needed to address this possibility with greater certainty. The vulnerability measures did

123

Strengths versus Vulnerabilities

85

show unique relationships with depression, and t-tests showed that the partial correlations
did not differ from the corresponding ones in Study 1. This reinforced past findings on the
link between vulnerabilities and distress, showing that this link exists even when controlling for several important strengths. In addition, the overall pattern of results in the last
column of Table 3 supported our prediction that vulnerabilities would have more consistent unique relationships with ill-being than would strengths.
To compare the unique contributions of strengths and vulnerabilities numerically, we
conducted a multiple regression with the transcendence composite and the DAS total as the
independent variables and depression as the dependent variable, with all variables standardized. We then computed a t-test to compare the magnitudes of the regression
coefficients for the transcendence composite and the DAS total, as in Study 1. The DAS
total had a significantly greater unique relationship with depression than did the transcendence composite (t = 2.39, p \ .05), supporting our prediction that distress would
have a stronger unique relationship with vulnerabilities than with strengths.
We also tested whether strengths and vulnerabilities interacted when predicting
depression. We regressed pre-treatment depression standardized on the pre-treatment DAS
total standardized, the pre-treatment transcendence composite standardized, and the
product of the pre-treatment DAS total standardized and the pre-treatment transcendence
composite standardized. The interaction term was not significant (B = .21, p [ .05). This
differed from Study 1, where strengths and vulnerabilities did interact to predict depression. The interaction analysis in Study 2, like the partial correlations, raises the possibility
that strengths may play less of a role in clinically severe depression than they do in milder
depression symptoms (compared to the mean BDI-II score of 28.53 in Study 2, which fell
in the moderate to severe depression range, the mean BDI score in Study 1 was only 9.79,
in the non-depressed range).
In our final set of analyses, we tested whether strengths and vulnerabilities could be
used to predict degree of recovery from depression. In these analyses, we included only
participants who completed an adequate number of therapy sessions, so that they could be
viewed as having truly participated in an effort at recovery. We considered clients who
completed at least eight of the 12 sessions as treatment completers. There were 38
completers in total.
A number of significant findings emerged. The first column of Table 4 shows the partial
correlations of post-treatment depression with pre-treatment strengths when controlling for
pre-treatment depression. This approach permitted an assessment of depression improvement, regardless of initial depression severity. The strengths of hope, appreciation of
beauty and excellence, and spirituality, as well as the transcendence composite, predicted a
reduction in depression symptoms. In contrast, none of the vulnerability measures predicted a reduction in depression. The latter result differed from the majority of past studies
which did find that initial vulnerabilities predicted later treatment outcome. Past results
have not been unequivocal, however: several studies found no relationship between pretreatment dysfunctional attitudes and depression reduction, and researchers have generally
found that vulnerabilities are better at predicting initial depression symptoms than degree
of recovery (Barnett and Gotlib 1988; Jarrett et al. 2007; Kwon and Oei 2003; Otto et al.
2007). Our results fit with this general pattern.
The middle column of Table 4 shows the contribution of pre-treatment strengths to
depression improvement beyond the role played by pre-treatment vulnerabilities. Hope,
appreciation of beauty and excellence, spirituality, and the transcendence composite still
showed significant effects. This contributed important new evidence that pre-existing
strengths can influence the success of cognitive-behavioral therapy for depression. It also

123

86

V. Huta, L. Hawley

Table 4 Predicting degree of depression recovery: partial correlations of pre-treatment strengths and
vulnerabilities with post-treatment depression in a clinically depressed sample
Post-treatment BDI-II
Controlling Pre-tx.
BDI-II

Controlling Pre-tx.
BDI-II and Pre-tx.
DAS Total

Pre-tx. Hope

-.43*

-.46**

Pre-tx. Enthusiasm

-.25

-.26

Pre-tx. Humor

-.20

-.22

Pre-tx. Gratitude

-.23

-.23

Pre-tx. Apprec. Beauty & Excell.

-.37*

-.37*

Pre-tx. Spirituality

-.42*

-.43*

Pre-tx. Forgiveness

-.09

-.08

Pre-tx. Transcendence Composite

-.41*

-.42*

Controlling Pre-tx.
BDI-II and Pre-tx.
Transcend. Comp.

Pre-tx. Perfectionism

.05

.13

Pre-tx. Need for Approval

.01

.08

Pre-tx. DAS Total

.02

.09

Note: Pre-tx. = Pre-treatment; Apprec. Beauty & Excell. = Appreciation of Beauty and Excellence;
Transcend. Comp. = Transcendence Composite
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01

provided data to support recent arguments that therapy should help clients to actively use
and develop their strengths (Karwoski et al. 2006; Linley and Joseph 2004; Seligman et al.
2006). Interestingly, one of the two past studies which used spirituality to predict
depression change (Braam et al. 1997) found that spirituality predicted depression
reduction in those who were depressed to begin with, but did not predict depression onset
in those who were non-depressed to begin withthis paralleled our findings to some
degree.
Finally, the last column of Table 4 shows that pre-treatment vulnerabilities made no
contribution to the improvement of depression symptoms beyond the role of pre-treatment
strengths. Overall, therefore, while initial depression severity was more tied to vulnerabilities, a reduction in depression was related to strengths.

3 General Discussion
The purpose of our research was to investigate the relationship between psychological
strengths and vulnerabilities and to study the relative roles they play in well-being. We
therefore employed two leading measures in the strengths and vulnerabilities literatures
the transcendence scales of the Values In Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS) and the
Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale (DAS). In both a normal sample and a clinically depressed
sample, the correlations between the strengths and vulnerabilities on these measures were
at most moderate. Thus, these strengths and vulnerabilities did not appear to be mere
opposites. This finding is especially important for the relatively new field of positive
psychology, showing that its contributions are not redundant with the well-established
literature on maladaptive characteristics.

123

Strengths versus Vulnerabilities

87

Zero-order correlations of strengths and vulnerabilities with the well-being variables

addressed a number of gaps in the literature. We found that vitality, meaning, and elevating
experience were related to all seven transcendence strengths, as well as to each of the
measures of cognitive vulnerability.
The partial correlations revealed the relative contributions of strengths and vulnerabilities to well-being. Generally, as we had predicted, the strengths had stronger and more
consistent unique relationships with positive well-being, while the vulnerabilities had
stronger and more consistent unique relationships with ill-being. This suggests that,
compared to vulnerabilities, strengths may more directly interact with the mechanisms
implicated in positive emotions, while vulnerabilities more directly interact with mechanisms involved in negative emotions. The two psychological and neurological systems that
have been identified as underlying positive affect/approach motivation versus negative
affect/avoidance motivation (e.g., Davidson and Irwin 1999; Diener and Emmons 1984;
Elliot and Thrash 2002) may each be part of even broader complexes: a strengths/positive
affect/approach motivation complex, and a vulnerabilities/negative affect/avoidance
motivation complex. Further psychological and neurological research will be needed to
more fully test this hypothesis.
A more specific examination of the partial correlations revealed that, in many cases,
strengths and vulnerabilities both had unique relationships with well-being. The vulnerabilities sometimes made incremental contributions to life satisfaction, positive affect, selfesteem, and meaning, while the strengthsnamely hope, enthusiasm, humor, and forgivenesssometimes made incremental contributions to negative affect and depression
symptoms. This suggests that the division which exists between the literatures on positive
well-being and ill-being is not warranted. While strengths may play the primary role in
positive well-being, research on vulnerabilities can make a valuable contribution; similarly, though vulnerabilities play a key role in ill-being, research on strengths is also
informative. It is noteworthy, though, that two well-being variables in our data showed
unique relationships only with strengths, not vulnerabilities: vitality and elevating experience. The fact that these well-being states distinguished so clearly between strengths and
vulnerabilities contributes evidence for their usefulness in well-being research.
We also found some interactions between strengths and vulnerabilities, providing further evidence that the combined study of strengths and vulnerabilities is important. There
was an interaction for two positive outcomesself-esteem and meaningsuch that vulnerabilities ceased to relate to these outcomes in individuals with high transcendence
strengths, and strengths were especially related to these outcomes in individuals with high
DAS vulnerabilities. There was also an interaction for the negative outcome of depression,
though only in the non-depressed sample. Thus, at least for milder depression symptoms,
we found that the relationship between vulnerabilities and depression was reduced, though
not eliminated, among people with high strengths; also, the negative relationship between
strengths and depression was increased among people with high vulnerabilities. Overall,
these findings suggest that strengths may buffer people from the detrimental effects of
vulnerabilities, but vulnerabilities do not undermine the beneficial effects of strengths. On
the contrary, strengths may be especially beneficial among individuals who are highly
vulnerable.
Finally, we think that our most striking and revealing finding was the predictive role
that strengths played in the improvement of depression symptoms. Three strengths in
particular promoted recovery beyond the role played by vulnerabilities: hope, appreciation
of beauty and excellence, and spirituality. Our result suggests that strengths may play a
substantial role in movement towards recovery. If our finding is replicated in future

123

88

V. Huta, L. Hawley

research, it will have tremendous implications for clinical practice. Todays leading
therapeutic interventions, cognitive therapy and behavioral therapy, focus primarily on
reducing vulnerabilities. Our findings suggest that harnessing strengths can make a significant incremental contribution to recovery. For example, in the early stages of cognitive
therapy for depression, clients are guided to engage in regular self-monitoring, with the
aim of increasing awareness of their depressive thinking (e.g., Im a failure because
I didnt do this task perfectly) and how it affects their mood. Therapists could build upon
this framework and have clients take notice of their daily use of strengths as well, and to
recognize how these strengths affect their well-being; this could include the use of a
checklist of VIA-IS strengths. Further, in the process of what is called cognitive restructuring, cognitive therapists teach clients to collect objective evidence to help them evaluate
the validity of their maladaptive beliefs (e.g., Do others do this task perfectly?). This
skill might also be applied to challenge negativistic thinking about strengths (e.g., Have
others benefited from forgiving someone for this kind of transgression?). During the final
stages of cognitive therapy, clients begin to identify and challenge maladaptive core
beliefs, which represent longstanding patterns of thought and behavior. Typically,
depressive core beliefs contain themes of perfectionism and/or need for approval involving
the self (e.g., Im defective), others (e.g., Nobody cares for me), and the world (e.g.,
The world is a hostile place). Clients are lead to actively seek out evidence which
disconfirms these beliefs, and actively generate adaptive alternative beliefs (e.g., I have
my flaws but overall Im a good person). Clients could actively develop beliefs regarding
strengths as well, involving the self (e.g., Im a compassionate, caring person), others
(e.g., Others are worthy of forgiveness, and genuine capable of forgiveness), and the
world (e.g., The world is filled with subtle beauty).
The research presented here is only an initial step in bringing the literatures on strengths
and vulnerabilities closer together. It will be important to extend this research to a more
diverse sample than the college population of Study 1, and to disorders other than major
depression. Other strengths and vulnerabilities have yet to be compared, such as hardiness
(Kobasa 1979) and attributional style (Abramson et al. 1978), and additional well-being
outcomes need to be studied, such as physical health and interpersonal functioning. Our
present research clearly indicates, however, that strengths and vulnerabilities are not
redundant concepts, and that both deserve attention in the literature on well-being and illbeing.

References
Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., & Alloy, L. B. (1989). Hopelessness depression: A theory-based subtype
of depression. Psychological Review, 96, 358372.
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and
reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 4974.
Antony, M. M., Purdon, C. L., Huta, V., & Swinson, R. P. (1998). Dimensions of perfectionism across the
anxiety disorders. Behavior Research and Therapy, 36, 11431154.
Ashby, J. S., & Rice, K. G. (2002). Perfectionism, dysfunctional attitudes, and self-esteem: A structural
equations analysis. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, 197203.
Baetz, M., Griffin, R., Bowen, R., Koenig, H. G., & Marcoux, E. (2004). The association between spiritual
and religious involvement and depressive symptoms in a Canadian population. Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease, 192, 818822.
Baetz, M., Larson, D. B., Marcoux, G., Bowen, R., & Griffin, R. (2002). Canadian psychiatric inpatient
religious commitment: An association with mental health. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry/La
Revue Canadienne de Psychiatrie, 47, 159166.

123

Strengths versus Vulnerabilities

89

Barnett, P. A., & Gotlib, I. H. (1988). Psychosocial functioning and depression: Distinguishing among
antecedents, concomitants, and consequences. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 97126.
Beck, A. T., Epstein, N., & Harrison, R. (1983). Cognitions, attitudes and personality dimensions in
depression. British Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 1, 116.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., Ball, R., & Ranieri, W. F. (1996a). Comparison of Beck Depression Inventories IA and -II in psychiatric outpatients. Journal of Personality Assessment, 67, 588597.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996b). Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory-II. San
Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Besser, A., Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2004). Perfectionism, cognition, and affect in response to performance failure vs. success. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 22,
301328.
Blatt, S. J. (2004). Experiences of depression: Theoretical, clinical, and research perspectives. Washington,
DC, USA: American Psychological Association.
Blatt, S. J., Quinlan, D. M., Pilkonis, P. A., & Shea, M. T. (1995). Impact of perfectionism and need for
approval on the brief treatment of depression: The National Institute of Mental Health Treatment of
Depression Collaborative Research Program revisited. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
63, 125132.
Blatt, S. J., & Zuroff, D. C. (1992). Interpersonal relatedness and self-definition: Two prototypes for
depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 12, 527562.
Blatt, S. J., Zuroff, D. C., Bondi, C. M., Sanislow, C. A., I. I. I., & Pilkonis, P. (1998). When and how
perfectionism impedes the brief treatment of depression: Further analyses of the NIMH TDCRP.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 162171.
Bostic, T. J., Rubio, D. M., & Hood, M. (2000). A validation of the subjective vitality scale using structural
equation modeling. Social Indicators Research, 52, 313324.
Bosworth, H. B., Park, K., McQuoid, D. R., Hays, J. C., & Steffens, D. C. (2003). The impact of religious
practice and religious coping on geriatric depression. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 18,
905914.
Braam, A. W., Beekman, A. T. F., Deeg, D. J. H., Smit, J. H., & Van Tilburg, W. (1997). Religiosity as a
protective or prognostic factor of depression in later life: Results from a community survey in the
Netherlands. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 96, 199205.
Braam, A. W., Hein, E., Deeg, D. J. H., Twisk, J. W. R., Beekman, A. T. F., & Van Tilburg, W. (2004).
Religious involvement and 6-year course of depressive symptoms in older Dutch citizens: Results from
the longitudinal aging study Amsterdam. Journal of Aging and Health, 16, 467489.
Brown, R. P. (2003). Measuring individual differences in the tendency to forgive: Construct validity and
links with depression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 759771.
Brown, G. P., & Beck, A. T. (2002). Dysfunctional attitudes, perfectionism, and models of vulnerability to
depression. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewlitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp.
231251). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Cane, D. B., Olinger, L. J., Gotlib, I. H., & Kuiper, N. A. (1986). Factor structure of the Dysfunctional
Attitude Scale in a student population. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42, 307309.
Chang, E. C. (2000). Perfectionism as a predictor of positive and negative psychological outcomes:
Examining a mediation model in younger and older adults. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47,
1826.
Chang, E. C. (Ed.). (2001). Optimism and pessimism: Implications for theory, research, and practice.
Washington, DC, USA: American Psychological Association.
Chang, E. C., & DeSimone, S. L. (2001). The influence of hope on appraisals, coping, and dysphoria: A test
of hope theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20, 117129.
Cheavens, J. S., Feldman, D. B., Gum, A., Michael, S. T., & Snyder, C. R. (2006). Hope therapy in a
community sample: A pilot investigation. Social Indicators Research, 77, 6178.
Compton, R. J. (2000). Ability to disengage attention predicts negative affect. Cognition and Emotion, 14,
401415.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being:
Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 668678.
Davidson, R. J., & Irwin, W. (1999). The functional neuroanatomy of emotion and affective style. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 3, 1121.
Davidson, R. J., Jackson, D. C., & Kalin, N. H. (2000). Emotion, plasticity, context, and regulation:
Perspectives from affective neuroscience. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 890909.
DeRubeis, R. J., Evans, M. D., Hollon, S. D., Garvey, M. J., Grove, W. M., & Tuason, V. B. (1990). How
does cognitive therapy work? Cognitive change and symptom change in cognitive therapy and pharmacotherapy for depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 862869.

123

90

V. Huta, L. Hawley

Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). The independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 11051117.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49, 7175.
Diener, E., & Iran-Nejad, A. (1986). The relationship in experience between various types of affect. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 10311038.
Dobson, K. S., & Breiter, H. J. (1983). Cognitive assessment of depression: Reliability and validity of three
measures. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92, 107109.
Dunkley, D. M., Zuroff, D. C., & Blankstein, K. R. (2003). Self-critical perfectionism and daily affect:
Dispositional and situational influences on stress and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 234252.
Dunkley, D. M., Zuroff, D. C., & Blankstein, K. R. (2006). Specific perfectionism components versus selfcriticism in predicting maladjustment. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 665676.
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and
avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 804818.
Emmons, R. A. (2000). Is spirituality an intelligence? Motivation, cognition, and the psychology of ultimate
concern. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 10, 326.
Emmons, R. A., Cheung, C., & Tehrani, K. (1998). Assessing spirituality through personal goals: Implications for research on religion and subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 45, 391422.
Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An experimental
investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84, 377389.
First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J. B. (1996). Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV
Axis I Disorders, Clinician Version (SCID-CV). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, Inc.
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (Eds.). (2002). Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment. Washington,
DC, USA: American Psychological Association.
Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., Mattia, J. I., & Neubauer, A. L. (1993). A comparison of two
measures of perfection. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 119126.
Gillham, J. E. (Ed.). (2000). The science of optimism and hope: Research essays in honor of Martin E. P.
Seligman. West Conshohocken, PA, USA: Templeton Foundation Press.
Gilman, R., & Ashby, J. S. (2003). A first study of perfectionism and multidimensional life satisfaction
among adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 23, 218235.
Gilman, R., Ashby, J. S., Sverko, D., Florell, D., & Varjas, K. (2005). The relationship between perfectionism and multidimensional life satisfaction among Croatian and American youth. Personality and
Individual Differences, 39, 155166.
Golden, A., Dalgleish, T., & Spinks, H. (2006). Dysfunctional attitudes in seasonal affective disorder.
Behavior Research and Therapy, 44, 11591164.
Greenberger, D., & Padesky, C. A. (1995). Mind over mood: A cognitive therapy treatment manual for
clients. New York, NY, USA: Guilford Press.
Grzegorek, J. L., Slaney, R. B., Franze, S., & Rice, K. G. (2004). Self-criticism, dependency, self-esteem,
and grade point average satisfaction among clusters of perfectionists and nonperfectionists. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 51, 192200.
Haidt, J. (2000). The positive emotion of elevation. Prevention and Treatment, 3. ISSN: 1522-3736
Haidt, J. (2003). Elevation and the positive psychology of morality. In C. L. M. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.),
Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp. 275289). Washington, DC, USA:
American Psychological Association.
Hamilton, K. E., & Dobson, K. S. (2002). Cognitive therapy of depression: Pretreatment patient predictors
of outcome. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 875894.
Hawley, L. L., Moon-Ho, R. H., Zuroff, D. C., & Blatt, S. J. (2006). The relationship of perfectionism,
depression, and therapeutic alliance during treatment for depression: Latent difference score analysis.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 930942.
Huta. V. M., & Grouzet, F. (2008). Well-being predictors of eudaimonia and hedonia: A longitudinal study.
Unpublished manuscript.
Huta, V. M., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Pursuing pleasure versus virtue: The differential and overlapping wellbeing benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Imber, S. D., Pilkonis, P. A., Sotsky, S. M., Elkin, I., Watkins, J. T., Collins, J. F., et al. (1990). Modespecific effects among three treatments for depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
58, 352359.
Ingram, R. E. (1990). Self-focused attention in clinical disorders: Review and a conceptual model.
Psychological Bulletin, 107, 156176.

123

Strengths versus Vulnerabilities

91

Jarrett, R. B., Vittengl, J. R., Doyle, K., & Clark, L. (2007). Changes in cognitive content during and
following cognitive therapy for recurrent depression: Substantial and enduring, but not predictive of
change in depressive symptoms. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 432446.
Karwoski, L., Garratt, G. M., & Ilardi, S. S. (2006). On the integration of cognitive-behavioral therapy for
depression and positive psychology. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 20, 159170.
Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. Cognition and
Emotion, 17, 297314.
Kendler, K. S., Liu, X., Gardner, C. O., McCullough, M. E., Larson, D., & Prescott, C. A. (2003).
Dimensions of religiosity and their relationship to lifetime psychiatric and substance use disorders.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 496503.
Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry into hardiness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 111.
Kobori, O., & Tanno, Y. (2005). Self-Oriented perfectionism and its relationship to positive and negative
affect: The mediation of positive and negative perfectionism cognitions. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 29, 555567.
Kuiper, N. A., Grimshaw, M., Leite, C., & Kirsh, G. (2004). Humor is not always the best medicine: Specific
components of sense of humor and psychological well-being. Humor: International Journal of Humor
Research, 17, 135168.
Kwon, S., & Oei, T. P. S. (2003). Cognitive change processes in a group cognitive behavior therapy of
depression. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 34, 7385.
Lawler-Row, K. A., & Piferi, R. L. (2006). The forgiving personality: Describing a life well lived?
Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 10091020.
Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2004). Positive psychology in practice. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley and
Sons Inc.
Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in uses of
humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire.
Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 4875.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1991). Adding liebe und arbeit: The full five-factor model and well-being.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 227232.
McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J. A. (2002). The grateful disposition: A conceptual and
empirical topography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 112127.
McGregor, I., & Little, B. R. (1998). Personal projects, happiness, and meaning: On doing well and being
yourself. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 494512.
Mofidi, M., DeVellis, R. F., Blazer, D. G., DeVellis, B. M., Panter, A. T., & Jordan, J. M. (2006).
Spirituality and depressive symptoms in a racially diverse US sample of community-dwelling adults.
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 194, 975977.
Molnar, D. S., Reker, D. L., Culp, N. A., Sadava, S. W., & DeCourville, N. H. (2006). A mediated model of
perfectionism, affect, and physical health. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 482500.
Nezu, A. M., Nezu, C. M., & Blissett, S. E. (1988). Sense of humor as a moderator of the relation between
stressful events and psychological distress: A prospective analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 520525.
Nix, G. A., Ryan, R. M., Manly, J. B., & Deci, E. L. (1999). Revitalization through self-regulation: The
effects of autonomous and controlled motivation on happiness and vitality. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 35, 266284.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2000). The role of rumination in depressive disorders and mixed anxiety/depressive
symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 504511.
Orcutt, H. K. (2006). The prospective relationship of interpersonal forgiveness and psychological distress
symptoms among college women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 350361.
Otto, M. W., Teachman, B. A., Cohen, L. S., Soares, C. N., Vitonis, A. F., & Harlow, B. L. (2007).
Dysfunctional attitudes and episodes of major depression: Predictive validity and temporal stability in
never-depressed, depressed, and recovered women. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 475483.
Park, C. (2006). Exploring relations among religiousness, meaning, and adjustment to lifetime and current
stressful encounters in later life. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 19, 3345.
Park, C., Cohen, L. H., & Herb, L. (1990). Intrinsic religiousness and religious coping as life stress
moderators for Catholics versus Protestants. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,
562574.
Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Strengths of character and well-being. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 23, 603619.
Peterson, C. (Ed.). (2006). Strengths of character and happiness (Special issue). Journal of Happiness
Studies, 7(3), 289291.

123

92

V. Huta, L. Hawley

Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Greater strengths of character and recovery from
illness. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 1726.
Peterson, C., Ruch, W., Beerman, U., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2007). Strengths of character,
orientations to happiness, and life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2, 149156.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2001). VIA Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS).
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Prosnick, K. P. (1997). A factor analytic study of transfluence. Gestalt Review, 1, 365369.
Rector, N. A. (2004). Dysfunctional attitudes and symptom expression in schizophrenia: Differential
associations with paranoid delusions and negative symptoms. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 18,
163173.
Reed, G. L., & Enright, R. D. (2006). The effects of forgiveness therapy on depression, anxiety, and
posttraumatic stress for women after spousal emotional abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 74, 920929.
Rice, K. G., & Ashby, J. S. (2007). An efficient method for classifying perfectionists. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 54, 7285.
Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S., & Slaney, R. B. (1998). Self-esteem as a mediator between perfectionism and
depression: A structural equations analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 304314.
Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct
validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 27, 151161.
Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic
reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65, 529565.
Saboonchi, F., & Lundh, L. (2003). Perfectionism, anger, somatic health, and positive affect. Personality
and Individual Differences, 35, 15851599.
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (2001). Optimism, pessimism, and psychological wellbeing. In E. C. Chang (Ed.), Optimism and pessimism: Implications for theory, research, and practice
(pp. 189216). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Scher, C. D., Ingram, R. E., & Segal, Z. V. (2005). Cognitive reactivity and vulnerability: Empirical
evaluation of construct activation and cognitive diatheses in unipolar depression. Clinical Psychology
Review, 25, 487510.
Seidlitz, L., Abernethy, A. D., Duberstein, P. R., Evinger, J. S., Chang, T. H., & Lewis, B. L. (2002).
Development of the Spiritual Transcendence Index. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41,
439453.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1990). Why is there so much depression today? The waxing of the individual and the
waning of the commons. In R. E. Ingram (Ed.), Contemporary psychological approaches to depression: Theory, research, and treatment. New York, NY, USA: Plenum Press.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness. New York: Free Press.
Seligman, M. E. P., Rashid, T., & Parks, A. C. (2006). Positive psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 61,
774788.
Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical
validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410421.
Shahar, G., Blatt, S. J., Zuroff, D. C., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2003). Role of perfectionism and personality
disorder features in response to brief treatment for depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 71, 629633.
Smith, T. B., McCullough, M. E., & Poll, J. (2003). Religiousness and depression: Evidence for a main
effect and the moderating influence of stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 614636.
Snyder, C. R. (2000). Handbook of hope: Theory, measures and applications. San Francisco: Academic
Press.
Steer, R. A., Ball, R., Ranieri, W. F., & Beck, A. T. (1997). Further evidence for the construct validity of the
Beck Depression Inventory-II with psychiatric outpatients. Psychological Reports, 80, 443446.
Steger, M. F., & Frazier, P. (2005). Meaning in life: One link in the chain from religiousness to well-being.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 574582.
Stumpf, H., & Parker, W. D. (2000). A hierarchical structural analysis of perfectionism and its relation to
other personality characteristics. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 837852.
Thompson, L. Y., Snyder, C. R., Hoffman, L., Michael, S. T., Rasmussen, H. N., Billings, L. S., et al.
(2005). Dispositional forgiveness of self, others, and situations. Journal of Personality, 73, 313359.
Thorson, J. A., Powell, F. C., Sarmany-Schuller, I., & Hampes, W. P. (1997). Psychological health and sense
of humor. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53, 605619.

123

Strengths versus Vulnerabilities

93

Underwood, L. G., & Teresi, J. A. (2002). The Daily Spiritual Experience Scale: Development, theoretical
description, reliability, exploratory factor analysis, and preliminary construct validity using healthrelated data. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 24, 2233.
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98,
219235.
Weissman, A. N., Beck, A. T. (1978). Development and validation of the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, November,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Wong, P. T. P. (1998). Spirituality, meaning, and successful aging. In P. T. P. Wong & P. S. Fry (Eds.), The
human quest for meaning: A handbook of psychological research and clinical applications (pp. 359
394). Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Wood, A. M., Joseph, S., & Linley, P. A. (2007). Coping style as a psychological resource of grateful
people. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 10761093.
Wright, K., Lam, D., & Newsom-Davis, I. (2005). Induced mood change and dysfunctional attitudes in
remitted Bipolar I Affective Disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 689696.
Zuroff, D. C., Blatt, S. J., Sanislow, C. A., I. I. I., Bondi, C. M., & Pilkonis, P. A. (1999). Vulnerability to
depression: Reexamining state dependence and relative stability. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
108, 7689.
Zuroff, D. C., Mongrain, M., & Santor, D. A. (2004). Conceptualizing and measuring personality vulnerability to depression: Comment on Coyne and Whiffen (1995). Psychological Bulletin, 130, 489511.

123