Exploring Person-Activity Fit: Should Happiness Seekers Build Upon Their Strengths or Improve Upon Their Weaknesses?

Researchers have concluded that greater gains in well-being and character virtue depend on the quality of the “fit” between the person and the practice—the degree to which the features of the activity are well-suited to the specific characteristics of the person. Although many interventions have been found to offer benefits to people on average, there is also evidence that not every intervention feels natural or works equally well for every individual—that is, there seems to be significant individual differences associated with the fit and impact of these interventions, tied to factors like age, personality traits, and culture. Yet despite this evidence, there is not yet a strong empirical foundation from which to proactively match people to their best-fitting activities—we do not yet understand precisely for whom certain positive activities are most effective and appropriate. In the current study, we will explore whether randomly assigning people to practice their virtue-strengths, virtue-weaknesses, or a self-selected set of positive interventions will lead to greater gains in well-being. This study will take place on Qualtrics, but it is meant to approximate the experience of participants in the 4-week Pathways to Happiness program on the Greater Good in Action (GGIA) website (https://ggia.berkeley.edu), hosted by UC Berkeley. Insights from this study will provide future guidance on how the GGIA website should assign participants to activities for the greatest efficacy.