A Shared Strength Can Have More Than One Expression

Imagine two colleagues who want to help a newcomer. One offers advice directly; the other quietly makes sure the newcomer receives the information they need. Or imagine two students expressing curiosity: one asks a question in class, while the other investigates it afterward. These are illustrative situations, not findings about particular nationalities. They introduce an important question: are we recognising the underlying strength, or only the form of behaviour we happen to expect?

The VIA classification describes 24 character strengths organised under six virtues. It offers a vocabulary for positive qualities expressed in thought, feeling and action. Its development drew on philosophical and religious traditions, seeking qualities valued beyond a single society (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). That ambition creates a research question rather than settling it: how widely are these qualities recognised, and what changes when researchers examine their expression and measurement across cultural settings?

Three Questions That Should Not Be Confused

A useful way to read the evidence is to separate recognition, self-description and consequences. Recognition asks whether people understand and value a quality. Self-description asks how much of that quality they report in themselves. Consequences concern its relationships with outcomes such as life satisfaction, learning or health. Agreement on the first question does not logically guarantee identical answers to the other two.

For example, two respondents might both value gratitude while describing different practices as its expression. They might also use a questionnaire's response categories differently. Before comparing their scores, a researcher needs to know which question the instrument actually answers. This distinction prevents an appealing statement about shared human qualities from becoming an unsupported statement that every strength has the same prevalence, meaning or benefit everywhere.

A country is also not a single conversation, family or institution. When applying a research finding, specify the setting you mean: a particular classroom, team or community. Ask whether the comparison concerns language, nationality, migration experience or another characteristic. Naming the actual grouping makes the claim more testable and helps prevent the broad word culture from substituting for an explanation that the study did not examine.

What Early Cross-Cultural Research Found

Biswas-Diener (2006) studied 123 Maasai participants in Kenya, 71 Inughuit participants in northern Greenland, and 519 University of Illinois students. Participants broadly agreed about the existence, desirability and development of the strengths. Differences nevertheless appeared in the importance assigned to particular strengths and in institutions supporting them. The study illustrates how shared recognition can coexist with cultural variation; three samples cannot establish that all communities interpret every strength identically.

Park, Peterson and Seligman (2006) analysed online responses from 117,676 adults across 54 nations and the 50 US states. National strength profiles showed considerable similarity. These were patterns in self-reports, however, rather than direct observations of everyday conduct. The result supports a common basis for discussion; it does not justify describing a population as morally superior or predicting an individual's character from their country.

What a Million Responses Can—and Cannot—Tell Us

McGrath (2015) extended this work using 1,063,921 online responses collected between 2002 and 2012. Analyses covered 75 nations with at least 150 respondents each and again found substantial similarities in strength endorsement. Honesty, fairness and kindness were among the most highly endorsed strengths. The author also acknowledged likely sampling bias: people completing an online strengths survey are not necessarily representative of their countries.

Sample size and representativeness answer different questions. A very large sample can estimate the responses of its participants precisely while still missing people who lack access, interest or an opportunity to participate. When reading a headline about national differences, ask who entered the study, who did not, and whether the conclusions concern respondents or entire populations. More observations do not automatically remove the consequences of selective recruitment.

The Same Questionnaire Must Measure the Same Thing

Psychometric research examines measurement invariance: whether a measure works comparably across groups. McGrath's study, published online in 2015 and in a 2016 journal issue, examined 15,540 respondents from 16 nations. Its findings supported the cross-cultural relevance of the classification and translations studied. That support belongs to the instruments, samples and models examined; it is not a permanent guarantee covering every later translation or comparison.

An everyday analogy helps explain the issue. Before comparing two distances, we need rulers with comparable units and starting points. With psychological questionnaires, we similarly ask whether items reflect the intended quality and whether response scores support the particular comparison. Reliable scores within each group are useful, but reliability alone does not establish comparability between groups. A translation can read smoothly and still require empirical testing.

Newer Evidence Makes the Picture More Precise

Jankowsky and colleagues (2025) examined 4,830 adults in five countries, studying prediction of 12 mental and physical health indicators from character-strength measures. Their findings questioned uniform generalisability across cultural settings and identified limitations in scalar measurement invariance across dissimilar cultures. A model that performs well in one sample therefore needs testing elsewhere. These were predictive analyses, not evidence that training strengths causes equivalent health improvements across countries.

There is no necessary contradiction between finding broadly similar strength profiles and finding limits to score comparisons or prediction. The studies ask different questions and may use different instruments and samples. Scientific understanding becomes stronger when these distinctions are retained. We can recognise a shared vocabulary while continuing to investigate how well a particular score or prediction travels from one setting to another.

Evidence from Qatar: Why Local Validation Matters

AlAhmadi and Bretherton (2021) evaluated the Arabic VIA-120 with 1,336 university-student participants in Qatar, alongside measures of life satisfaction and affect. Most strength subscales showed moderate reliability, and analyses identified four broader factors. The authors recommended the longer VIA-IS for the Qatari context. The study contributes valuable local evidence while also identifying measurement limitations; it should not be presented as validation for every Arabic-speaking population.

This matters when a practitioner says that an assessment is available in Arabic. Availability, comprehensibility and validation are related but distinct achievements. A university sample cannot automatically establish suitability for schoolchildren, older adults or people in another country. Nor does sharing a language eliminate differences in education or lived experience. The practical question is which version has evidence for this population and this intended use.

Context Includes Circumstances, Not Only Cultural Traditions

Hendriks and colleagues (2025) interviewed 26 refugees in the Netherlands. Their qualitative analysis highlighted self-regulation, perseverance, gratitude, love of learning and hope in coping with daily challenges, with different patterns depending on participants' migration circumstances. These interviews help explain lived experience; they do not establish the effectiveness of an intervention. They also remind us to consider practical circumstances alongside cultural background.

Casali, Filippi and Feraco (2024) analysed national strength averages and economic inequality across 68 countries, drawing on data representing 980,807 respondents. They reported positive associations between inequality and many self-reported strengths, while discussing alternative explanations and sampling limitations. This country-level association does not show that inequality improves character. It illustrates why socioeconomic conditions, self-presentation and measurement deserve examination before assigning a cultural explanation to a result.

Culturally Responsive Research Starts Before the Programme

Tirrell and colleagues' GROW study in Zambia, published online in 2024 and in a 2025 issue, examined measures intended for strengths-focused programmes. It used school and community samples of 460 and 457 participants respectively. This publication concerned measurement development and validation, providing groundwork for subsequent programme evaluation. It should not be cited as if it had already demonstrated the programmes' effects on the targeted outcomes.

For a new programme, distinguish at least three tasks: establish what participants understand by the strength, decide how it will be practised, and choose a suitable way to measure change. An activity's appeal is not the same as demonstrated benefit. Likewise, a rise in well-being does not by itself establish that the intended strength changed. These distinctions help formulate research questions clearly before interpreting results.

Seeing Strengths Without Imposing One Behavioural Style

Niemiec and Pearce (2021) describe strengths as qualities expressed in degrees, combinations and context, and discuss the importance of appropriate use. This framework encourages a more precise question than whether someone displays a strength: how is it being expressed here? Considering underuse and overuse involves the demands of the situation, rather than assuming that a more visible expression is always a better expression.

Consider a classroom example. A teacher wants students to demonstrate curiosity. Counting spoken questions alone would make one form of expression decisive. An alternative classroom activity could invite a spoken question, a written question, or a short investigation. This is an illustrative teaching option, not a claim that these formats have been experimentally shown to be equivalent. Its purpose is to make the assessment question explicit: are we interested in inquiry, public speaking, or both?

In a workplace example, an employee may express honesty by correcting an error in a private conversation. Another may raise the same concern in a meeting. Before interpreting either response, ask what happened, who needed the information and what the action achieved. Avoid assigning either style to a nationality. The strength, the behaviour and the situation all need description before a cultural interpretation is useful.

What VIA's Articles Add to the Conversation

VIA's article Help! I'm Confused By My Strengths?! illustrates why labels need explanation: a word such as judgment can be misunderstood as harsh criticism rather than careful consideration. Its article Committing to Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion emphasises recognising strengths across different backgrounds. These are useful educational and institutional perspectives; they are not additional experiments establishing cultural equivalence.

An original reflection exercise follows from these questions. Choose one recent interaction and describe the observable action before naming a strength. Ask the other person what the action meant to them, if appropriate. Then consider another plausible interpretation and the information that would help distinguish them. The aim is careful understanding, not diagnosing someone or proving a theory about their culture. Such a conversation can remain useful even when no definitive strength label emerges.

For a further everyday example, imagine thanking someone who dislikes public attention. A public tribute, a private note and practical help are different possible actions. Rather than guessing which expression fits their background, ask what they would appreciate. The reasoning is deliberately person-specific: cultural knowledge can suggest questions, but the person remains a source of information about their own preferences. This also makes disagreement informative. If an intended expression of kindness feels intrusive, describe the mismatch and reconsider the action instead of concluding that either person lacks kindness. The example proposes a way to reflect; it does not establish an intervention effect.

A Shared Vocabulary, with Room for Difference

Taken together, the research supports investigating both commonality and variation. It does not require choosing between a completely universal picture and a completely culture-specific one. For readers, the useful habit is to ask what kind of evidence supports each claim: recognition, self-report similarity, measurement equivalence, prediction, or an intervention. Each answers part of the question, and none can silently stand in for all the others.

This article is a narrative review of selected foundational studies, newer research and relevant VIA resources available in October 2026. It is not an exhaustive systematic review. Its practical examples are explicitly illustrative. Subsequent articles in this series will examine evidence in work and education in more detail, retaining the same principle: conclusions should fit the participants, measures, research design and outcomes that were actually studied.

References and Related Reading

• AlAhmadi, A., & Bretherton, R. (2021). Character strengths in Qatar: A psychometric evaluation of the VIA-IS short form and the correlations with subjective wellbeing. European Journal of Applied Positive Psychology, 5, 25, 1–14. https://www.nationalwellbeingservice.org/volumes/volume-5-2021/volume-5-article-25/
• Biswas-Diener, R. (2006). From the equator to the North Pole: A study of character strengths. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-005-3646-8
• Casali, N., Filippi, S., & Feraco, T. (2024). Does inequality shape human character? Cross-cultural associations between character strengths and the Gini index in 68 countries. Journal of Happiness Studies, 25, 37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-024-00751-w
• Hendriks, T., van Treeck, J., Chaya, R., de Jong, J. T. V. M., & van Woerkom, M. (2025). Character strengths as coping strategies for daily challenges: A qualitative study among adult refugees. International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology, 10, 24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41042-024-00211-z
• Jankowsky, K., Belobrajdic, N., Weziak-Bialowolska, D., Bialowolski, P., & McGrath, R. E. (2025). Character strengths as universal predictors of health? Using machine learning to examine the predictive validity of character strengths across cultures. The Journal of Positive Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2025.2587057
• McGrath, R. E. (2015). Character strengths in 75 nations: An update. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(1), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.888580
• McGrath, R. E. (2016). Measurement invariance in translations of the VIA Inventory of Strengths. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32(3), 187–194. First published online in 2015. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000248
• Niemiec, R. M., & Pearce, R. (2021). The practice of character strengths: Unifying definitions, principles, and exploration of what’s soaring, emerging, and ripe with potential in science and in practice. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 590220. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.590220
• Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Character strengths in fifty-four nations and the fifty US states. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(3), 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760600619567
• Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford University Press / American Psychological Association. https://www.viacharacter.org/character-strengths-and-virtues
• Tirrell, J. M., Sampa, M., Wootten, K., Harris, S. K., McGrath, R. E., Mulavu, M., Sindano, N., Kasanga, L., Mweemba, O., Seale, D. M., Seale, J. P., & Mutale, W. (2025). Measuring character strengths and promoting positive youth development in Zambia: Initial findings from the GROW Hopes for Life study. Child & Youth Care Forum, 54, 303–322. First published online in 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-024-09814-8
• VIA Institute on Character. (n.d.). Committing to justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. Educational/institutional resource. https://www.viacharacter.org/topics/articles/committing-to-justice-equity-diversity-and-inclusion
• VIA Institute on Character. (n.d.). Help! I'm confused by my strengths?! Educational resource. https://www.viacharacter.org/topics/articles/help-im-confused-by-my-strengths

Original character strengths symbols © VIA Institute on Character.