Personality Functioning Strengths: Reimagining Personality Strengths in Mental Health

In the past, the term “personality strengths” (PS) has been used synonymously with terms such as character strengths, personal strengths, inner strengths, and psychological strengths.^1,2 Character strengths are defined as “intrinsic moral, stable traits that benefit other people when expressed.” ³ Personal strengths are the characteristics of a person that allow them to perform well or at their personal best. ⁴ Inner strength has been defined as a human resource that promotes well-being and quality of life. ⁵ PS are considered as attributes that promote an individual’s ability to adapt and adjust. ⁶ These characteristics that individuals possess facilitate or enhance their well-being. ⁷ The PS has been related to positive consequences, such as better life outcomes, improved physical health, and occupational success, and is considered protective against psychopathology and suicidal behaviors.^8–10 Through an interpersonal lens, these PS are related to interpersonal competence, fewer interpersonal problems, and other positive relationship-related outcomes. ¹¹ The landscape of positive psychology has introduced a multitude of constructs for consideration in this context, including gratitude, curiosity, hope, optimism, meaning in life, personality health prototype, and conscientiousness.^{10, 12, 13} Another recent taxonomy of positive personality characteristics includes serenity, humanity, integrity, moderation, and sprightliness as the positive versions of the maladaptive personality traits of negative affect, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, and psychoticism, respectively. ¹⁴

The existing understanding of PS is restricted to conceptualizing inherent, stable, and healthy trait-like characteristics of an individual. ¹² A limitation of this approach is that individuals are unlikely to invest effort in developing strengths if they are considered stable entities. ¹⁵ The idea that PS can be developed aligns with the concept of personality dynamics and functioning.

Despite the wide range of studies on PS, it appears striking that PS has generally been studied within a larger framework of personality traits—stable, moralistic, and inherent qualities.^{12, 16} In recent years, the understanding of personality has expanded to encompass contemporary theories on personality functioning and dynamics. ¹⁷ The conceptualization of PS thus warrants a fresh perspective, different from the definitions provided above. The objective of this paper is to propose the concept of “personality functioning strengths” (PFS), a dynamic and malleable conceptualization of PS within the realm of mental health. We initiate this by examining the current understanding of PS and its associated limitations and further provide a new conceptualization of PFS.

Transitioning Towards a Newer Understanding

There is sufficient evidence indicating that personality is subject to change and development across the lifespan. ¹⁸ Individuals’ personality characteristics differ across many social roles and contexts throughout their lives. ¹⁹ These findings have spurred researchers to study more malleable and dynamic aspects of personality for a better understanding of the “person-in-context.” ²⁰ Moreover, evidence from the last decade also suggests that PS are dynamic and within-person constructs that are profoundly context-dependent.^12,15 The use of PS may vary across contexts and situations, as some PS may be more applicable across a wide variety of situations. In contrast, other strengths will be used less frequently in some specific situations. ³ This dynamic approach to PS is best conceptualized in terms of personality functioning.

Personality functioning is described as “self-related and other-related affect-laden processing and regulation capacities.” ²¹ The concept of personality functioning is represented in a range of contemporary personality models, including the DSM-5 alternative model of personality disorders (AMPD), the operationalized psychodynamic diagnosis, and the model of personality organization by Kernberg.^{22, 23} The newer dimensional model of personality disorders of the AMPD measures personality functioning (levels of personality functioning) in DSM-5 in terms of self and others, that is, identity, self-direction, empathy, and intimacy. ²⁴ Various studies have assessed personality functioning in clinical samples, such as depression, anxiety, and personality disorders, and these processes have been found to be highly related to well-being.^{25, 26} Despite the theoretical and practical significance of the personality functioning concept, it has yet to be commonly integrated into diagnostic and treatment planning. ²⁷ Personality functioning beyond traits can include changeable aspects of personality, that is, characteristic adaptations—these are considered more sensitive to change than traits.^{20, 28} These are broadly considered socio-cognitive personality constructs. ²⁹ The terms adaptive capacities or characteristic adaptations describe the dynamic level of personality functioning, mainly referring to affect and impulse regulation, representation of self and others, identity integration, capacity for intimate relationships and effective social functioning and coping strategies, and other dynamically interacting cognitive and affective systems.^{30, 31} Similar concepts such as “life tasks,” “personal projects,” and “personal striving” are considered under the umbrella term of characteristic adaptations.^32–34 Thus, we suggest studying PS in terms of motives, goals, plans, strivings, strategies, values, virtues, schemas, self-images, and other aspects of human individuality that speak to motivational, social-cognitive, and developmental concerns, which are contextualized in time and specific roles.^{31, 35} Drawing from McAdam’s theory of personality, we contend that PFS must be understood as what it “does” (i.e., the function it serves) in a specific situational context. Since cultural aspects can influence and determine personality functioning, assessment of PFS for people of diverse backgrounds must consider their cultural values, beliefs, and practices that moderate spirituality, religion, family, and community values. ³⁶ For example, the capacity to self-reflect might not be considered a strength unless an individual functions in a role/social context in which such introspection is encouraged, such as in an independent culture. It has been found that individuals in interdependent cultures often apply a self-distanced approach when thinking about experiences. ³⁷

Personality Functioning Strengths

We propose the term PFS to represent the dynamic nature of PS. PFS can then be defined as socio-cognitive and motivational factors contributing to positive outcomes such as improved well-being or reduced psychopathology when effectively deployed, promoting adaptation and adjustment in sociocultural contexts. The most crucial aspect of the proposed definition is that PFS is not particularly inherent and stable, that is, (i) can develop, change, or be lost over time, and (ii) one has to understand the contexts in which personality functioning might be considered strengths. ⁶ Some commonly included constructs in the list of characteristics adaptions that are linked to well-being are self-efficacy (perceived control), outcome expectations (positive expectancies regarding the future), and personal goals (purpose- and meaning-related cognitions). ³⁸

We believe a dynamic framework that describes PFS as malleable and context-specific can touch upon several interesting implications concerning clinical populations, such as individuals with depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders. First, since characteristic adaptations are situated at the intersection between person and situation, this can provide insights into understanding PS in a contextualized manner and can answer more practical and specific questions about an individual. The evidence further indicates that changes in these dynamic aspects of personality functioning are related to clinically relevant outcomes, such as therapeutic alliance, dropout, and treatment completion. ²⁸ Moreover, assessing strengths in personality functioning can capture the idiosyncratic strategies an individual employs and assist in individualized treatment plans. A more malleable framework of PS may encourage individuals to develop their PS, enhancing a growth mindset and further improving treatment engagement, motivation, recovery, and overall well-being.^{39, 40}

The Indian Scenario

Indian researchers have explored various interpersonal and intrapersonal positive attributes, such as altruism, forgiveness, gratitude, and the presence of meaning in life, which are positively correlated to well-being. ⁴¹ However, the focus has mainly been on capturing stable positive traits that are relevant to the Indian context. ⁴² Research suggests that in the attribution of behaviors, collectivist cultures tend to use contextualized, causal, and more changeable inferences than fixed dispositional traits. ⁴³ When personality is viewed as unchangeable, it can lead to increased stigma towards individuals with mental illness, resulting in a more pessimistic outlook on the potential for recovery among these individuals. ⁴⁴

Explanation of the psychiatric conditions as stable can further add to the existing high prevalence of stigma towards mental illnesses.^{45, 46} It can exacerbate negative attitudes by implying that individuals with mental illness lack control over their conditions. ⁴⁷ The conceptualization of PS as changeable and dynamic might foster a more supportive environment that encourages seeking help and reduces discrimination, allowing for an optimistic approach toward mental illness.

Way Forward

The proposed transition towards PFS is not a radical departure from trait models such as the five-factor model but an extension grounded in ongoing research on personality dynamics. ⁴⁸ Since PFS is considered context-dependent, we urge that researchers and clinicians include various contextual domains such as peer, family, workplace, and romantic relationships in assessing PFS. This can explain why some PFS appear in some areas of functioning and not in others. For example, an individual can have the capacity to regulate emotions in their intimate romantic relationship by using effective communication skills but may lack the capacity to manage difficult emotions in their professional life, especially when dealing with employees or under high pressure from upper management.

Future research should seek to establish domains and sub-domains that can come under the umbrella term of PFS (such as empathy, adaptive schemas, reflectiveness, spirituality, etc.), which can further help develop an ecologically valid measure of PS. ⁴⁹ We further call for a culturally situated understanding of PFS, exploring factors that are pivotal in specific cultural/social settings. ⁵⁰ Existing PS assessments, such as the VIA Inventory of Strengths, are mostly self-reported and often overlook the variables involved in the social context. ³ An interview-based measure that allows for a more dimensional and accurate assessment of contexts can be beneficial in understanding PFS. There is a need to explore additional aspects of PFS within the context of mental health.

Conclusion

The PS is clearly associated with several positive outcomes in mental health. Even the DSM-5 proposed including the personality health prototype assessment as a measure of strengths and adaptive resources. ⁵¹ Even though PS as characteristic adaptions have not been explored, the constructs discussed here, and many more within the ambit of personality functioning, are strongly linked to specific positive life outcomes, such as quality of life, and physical and mental well-being. The preponderance of research on traits and the lack of consideration of dynamic aspects of personality in the literature all support the need for PS research to shift beyond the trait level conceptualization.