The Moderating Effects of Character Strengths on the Relationship of Stress and Life Satisfaction in People With Acquired Physical Disabilities

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the degree to which the 24 character strengths in Peterson and Seligman’s character strengths model moderate the relationship between disability-related stress and life satisfaction in individuals with acquired physical disabilities. Participants included 165 individuals with self-reported acquired physical disabilities. The Satisfaction with Life Scale, the Disability-Related Stress Scale, and the Global Assessment of Character Strengths were used to measure the variables in the study. Twenty-four linear regressions were conducted to test the moderating effects of the character strengths in the relationship between disability-related stress and life satisfaction. The majority of character strengths significantly moderated the relationship between disability-related stress and life satisfaction. Humor, curiosity, appreciation of beauty, and social intelligence had the strongest moderating effects. Bravery and prudence did not have a significant moderating effect. Gratitude, humility, and leadership originally had significant moderating effects, but after Type 1 error controls were applied, their results were no longer significant. This study supports the role of character strengths in moderating the relationship between disability-related stress and life satisfaction among individuals with acquired physical disabilities. Promoting strengths-based interventions can allow individuals to more effectively cope with stressors and achieve a high level of life satisfaction.

Keywords

character strengths stress life satisfaction disability positive psychology

Introduction

Disability is a prevalent aspect of life, with one in four adults (27%) in the United States identifying as having a disability (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2023). Despite growing awareness and advances in accessibility, individuals with disabilities face systemic barriers and heightened challenges compared to their non-disabled peers. For example, only 19.1% of people with disabilities are employed compared to 63.7% of those without disabilities (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022). Even when employed, they often encounter stigma, discrimination, and a persistent pay gap (Baker et al., 2018). Addressing these challenges is crucial for promoting well-being for individuals with disabilities.

Among individuals with disabilities, those with acquired physical disabilities (APD) face unique challenges. Physical disabilities are the most common type of disability (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2025), and the likelihood of acquiring a disability increases with age. Unlike congenital disabilities, APD often involve a sudden adjustment to new physical limitations, requiring adaptations in identity, independence, and societal perceptions (Bogart, 2014). These added layers of adjustment make the experience of APD distinct and often more difficult than adapting to congenital disabilities. Thus, focusing on the experiences of individuals with APD is essential for tailoring interventions and support systems for the largest positive impact.

In rehabilitation counseling, character strengths may be relevant across multiple service phases, including intake and assessment, development of the Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE), adjustment counseling, and employment maintenance. Strengths such as curiosity, social intelligence, and humor may support career exploration, interpersonal effectiveness, and coping, while strengths such as prudence or perseverance may support goal planning and job retention.

Stress and Disability

Disability-related stress is a key contributor to such mental health struggles. Stressors may include individual issues such as health problems and social relationship difficulties, and systemic barriers like physical inaccessibility, social exclusion, and employment discrimination (Cree et al., 2020; Iwasaki & Mactavish, 2005). These stressors often negatively impact overall life satisfaction and well-being (Kagan et al., 2018).

The ability to evaluate and manage stress-inducing factors significantly affects an individual’s adaptation to disability (Dennison et al., 2009). Research indicates that individuals with physical disabilities report higher levels of perceived stress, reflecting a sense of unpredictability and lack of control (Cohen & Williamson, 1988; Hughes et al., 2005). Stress may have a more severe impact on individuals with fewer resources, such as adequate social support, to mitigate its effects (Hughes et al., 2005). Stressors like additional demands of daily living, exclusionary social systems, and financial difficulties exacerbate these challenges (Iwasaki & Mactavish, 2005).

Stress has been found to be associated with poorer psychological well-being among individuals with disabilities (Gilchrist & Creed, 1994). It also contributes to the worsening of symptoms and disease progression in chronic health conditions like arthritis (e.g., Zautra et al., 1997). However, individuals with good adaptive coping mechanisms often experience fewer adverse consequences. Positive psychosocial resources, such as optimism and social support, have been shown to buffer the effects of stress and reduce vulnerability to health issues (Schneiderman et al., 2005). Identifying and fostering effective coping mechanisms holds the potential to improve outcomes for disabled people (Zimmer-Gembeck & Skinner, 2016).

One promising avenue for reducing stress and improving adaptation is the exploration of character strengths. Character strengths provide a positive psychological framework for understanding how individuals can leverage internal resources to better manage stress and enhance life satisfaction (Lee et al., 2023). Lee and colleagues (2024) explored different latent profiles of character strengths utilized across a continuum by people with disabilities and examined their relationship to employment outcomes. Their findings suggested that character strengths play a crucial role in positive employment experiences. In another cross-cultural longitudinal study, researchers found that the use of character strengths supported self-perceived health, social connectedness, meaning in life, and mental health during adversity (Węziak-Białowolska et al., 2021). These findings, consistent with the present study, reinforce the potential of strengths-based interventions for individuals with chronic conditions and disabilities. By focusing on these positive traits, interventions can support individuals with APD in navigating their unique challenges, fostering a greater sense of agency and well-being.

Character Strengths and Disability

Positive psychology is the scientific approach to uncovering, highlighting, and building upon people’s strengths and positive functioning (Lopez et al., 2019). The Values in Action (VIA) Classification of Strengths (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) is a well-known framework that consists of 24 character strengths organized around six virtues (see Table 1). It has been theorized that each individual exhibits specific strengths, also known as their signature strengths, that represent their core identity and functioning (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).

Table 1.

Peterson and Seligman’s (2004) Classification of Virtues and Character Strengths (Adapted From Seligman et al., 2005).

Virtue	Character strength	Definition
Wisdom and Knowledge		Cognitive strengths related to attaining and using new knowledge
	Creativity	Discovering new and innovative ways to do things
	Curiosity	Enthusiastically exploring and discovering new things
	Judgment	Thinking things through and examining them from all sides
	Love of Learning	Relishing in the acquisition of new skills and knowledge
	Perspective	Providing wise counsel to others
Courage		Emotional strengths that involve working hard to accomplish goals in the face of opposition
	Bravery	Not withdrawing from threat, challenge, difficulty, or pain
	Honesty	Speaking the truth and presenting oneself in a genuine and authentic way
	Perseverance	Working hard to finish what has been started
	Zest	Approaching life with excitement and energy
Humanity		Interpersonal strengths that involve developing relationships and caring for other people
	Kindness	Being generous and doing good deeds
	Love	Valuing close relations with others
	Social Intelligence	Knowing how to adapt to different social situations
Justice		Civic strengths related to being an integral part of a healthy community
	Fairness	Treating all people the same and with impartiality
	Leadership	Effectively managing groups to complete activities
	Teamwork	Working collaboratively as a member of a team
Temperance		Strengths related to the use of restraint in thoughts, emotions, and behavior
	Forgiveness	Forgiving those who have done wrong
	Humility	Being modest and letting one’s accomplishments speak for themselves
	Prudence	Being cautious about one’s actions
	Self-Regulation	Exercising self-control and discipline
Transcendence		Strengths that provide meaning in life and exceed the limits of ordinary experience
	Appreciation of Beauty and Excellence	Noticing and admiring beauty and excellence in everyday life
	Gratitude	Being thankful for the good things that happen
	Hope	Expecting the best in the future, and working actively to achieve it
	Humor	Enjoying laughter and amusing others
	Spirituality	Having beliefs about life that bring comfort

The field of rehabilitation aligns closely with a strengths-based approach. Research demonstrates that character strengths act as protective factors, buffering the negative effects of stress and enhancing well-being among individuals with chronic conditions and disabilities. For instance, Umucu et al. (2020) found that character strengths helped individuals with disabilities manage stress related to the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to higher levels of well-being. Another study by Umucu et al. (2022) highlighted the cross-cultural benefits of utilizing character strengths in enhancing self-perceived physical health, social connectedness, and mental health among individuals with disabilities. These findings emphasize the potential of strengths-based interventions to improve well-being outcomes for individuals with APD.

Character strengths have been shown to be associated with life satisfaction in many disability populations, including traumatic brain injury (Hanks et al., 2014), multiple sclerosis (Smedema, 2020; Smedema & Bhattarai, 2021), spinal cord injury (Phillips et al., 2015), and intellectual disabilities (Niemiec et al., 2017). Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that interventions targeting character strengths can lead to improvements in mental health and well-being (Martínez-Martí et al., 2020). Overall, growing evidence supports the notion that fostering character strengths can enhance resilience and life satisfaction (e.g., Gander & Wagner, 2020; Tehranchi et al., 2018), highlighting the importance of integrating strengths-based approaches into therapeutic practices.

Character Strengths, Stress, and Life Satisfaction

Research highlights the role of character strengths in helping individuals with disabilities cope with stress and improve life satisfaction. For example, Harzer and Ruch (2015) found that intellectual, emotional, and interpersonal strengths were positively associated with effective coping, helping individuals manage stress in work environments. Li et al. (2017) demonstrated that individuals with higher character strengths experienced faster cardiovascular recovery from stress, underscoring the physical benefits of strong character traits. These findings suggest that developing character strengths may enhance resilience, particularly in the face of adversity. Unlike traditional personality traits, which are generally considered stable, character strengths are positive, morally valued qualities that can be developed through intentional practice. Studies have supported the validity of the VIA model across diverse cultural and clinical groups (e.g., Niemiec et al., 2017), including individuals with disabilities (Shogren et al., 2018; Smedema, 2020; Umucu et al., 2020, 2021). Research has demonstrated that using signature strengths is associated with improvements in physical health, social relationships, and psychological well-being (Węziak-Białowolska et al., 2021), suggesting its relevance and applicability for people with APD.

Life satisfaction among individuals with APD is influenced by various psychological, social, and environmental factors. While the onset of disability often leads to declines in life satisfaction, research shows that adaptation and resilience, influenced by character strengths, play significant roles in improving well-being over time (Huang, 2022). Strengths such as hope, perseverance, and gratitude enable individuals to maintain a positive outlook and develop adaptive coping mechanisms. The purpose of the present study, therefore, is to investigate the degree to which character strengths moderate the relationship between stress and life satisfaction in individuals with APD. A conceptually similar study by Lee et al. (2023) explored how disability-related stress influences life satisfaction through the serial mediating roles of optimism and mental health in individuals with multiple sclerosis. While that study did not directly examine character strengths, it highlighted how internal psychological resources can buffer the negative effects of stress, supporting the theoretical basis for the current study. Like optimism, character strengths represent modifiable traits that contribute to well-being and may serve a similar protective function. Integrating the VIA framework offers a more granular and nuanced lens than broader trait-based approaches, allowing for the identification of specific, actionable strengths most relevant to individuals facing disability-related stress. The decision to focus on individual character strengths, rather than broader virtue categories, was based on prior research suggesting that specific strengths demonstrate unique predictive relationships with psychosocial outcomes independent of their virtue classification (Niemiec, 2023). Thus, the current study builds upon and extends the work of Lee et al. by using a multidimensional model of psychological resources to examine moderation rather than mediation, providing a complementary perspective on how internal traits may buffer the effects of disability-related stress. By understanding how strengths influence the experience of stress, we can inform interventions that empower individuals to build resilience and improve their quality of life.

Method

Participants

The participants who completed the survey included 165 individuals with self-reported APD. The top five APD reported by participants included diabetes (n = 75), arthritis (n = 60), brain injuries (n = 44), neurological disorders (n = 37), and amputations (n = 37). Counts exceed the total N because some participants reported more than one APD. The gender identities of participants were 88 (53.3%) females and 77 (46.7%) males. The mean age for participants was 32.9 years (SD = 10.2, Range = 20–68). The racial/ethnic characteristics of participants were as follows: 152 (92.1%) White, 8 (4.8%) Black, 1 (.6%) Asian, 2 (1.2%) Native American, and 2 (1.2%) who identified as “other”. With respect to marital status, 38 (23.0%) of the participants indicated that they are single, 124 (75.2%) indicated that they are married or are partnered, and 3 (1.8%) indicated that they are divorced. The educational attainments of participants were as follows: 4 (2.4%) indicated that they have a high school diploma or GED, 6 (3.6%) indicated that they have some college, 75 (45.5%) indicated that they have an undergraduate degree, and 80 (48.5%) indicated that they have a graduate degree. Demographic information for the sample can be found in Table 2.

Table 2.

Demographic Characteristics of the Sample (n = 165).

Variables	n (%) or mean (SD)
Age	32.9 (10.2) Range 20–68
Gender identity
Female	88 (53.3%)
Male	77 (46.7%)
Other	7 (2.6%)
Race/ethnicity
White	152 (92.1%)
Black	8 (4.8%)
Asian	1 (0.6%)
Native American	2 (1.2%)
Other	2 (1.2%)
Marital status
Single	38 (23.0%)
Married or partnered	124 (75.2%)
Divorced	3 (1.8%)
Education
Graduated from high school or equivalent	4 (2.4%)
Some college	6 (3.6%)
Undergraduate degree	75 (45.5%)
Graduate degree	80 (48.5%)

Measures

The following instruments were used to measure the variables in this study: a demographic questionnaire, the Satisfaction with Life Scale, the Disability-Related Stress Scale, and the Global Assessment of Character Strengths.

Demographic Questionnaire

Participants began the survey by providing demographic information, including gender identity, race/ethnicity, age, marital status, and educational level.

Satisfaction With Life Scale

Life satisfaction was measured with the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985). A global score is computed by summing 5 items, which are rated on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree.” An example item is “In most ways, my life is close to my ideal”. Higher scores are reflective of greater levels of life satisfaction and how closely one’s life aligns with what they desire. Diener et al. (1985) found initial adequate test/retest reliability (.82), alphas ranging from .61 to .89, and it was found to correlate with other life satisfaction scales (r = .50–.70). The Cronbach’s alpha for the present study was calculated to be .77.

Disability-Related Stress Scale

Stress related to disability was measured with the Disability-Related Stress Scale (DRSS; Rhode et al., 2012). The scale was developed to measure stressful life events experienced by people with disabilities. Each item in the scale consists of two questions: whether the event occurred (event) and how stressful the event was (impact). The impact scores are rated on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 = “moderately stressful” to 7= “extremely stressful”. An example item is “Chose not to participate in enjoyable activities because of my disability”. In order to reduce participant burden, only the impact scores for the first two scales, disability impact (9 items) and societal barriers (7 items), were included in the present study. When an event did not occur, the impact rating was coded as 0, and the final DRSS score represents the summed impact of all included items. Rhode et al. (2012) reported alphas ranging from .72 to 84. The Cronbach’s alpha for the present study was calculated to be .95 for the combined disability impact and societal barriers items.

Global Assessment of Character Strengths

Character strengths were measured with the Global Assessment of Character Strengths–24 item version (GACS-24; McGrath, 2017). This scale was developed to measure each of the 24-character strengths in the Peterson and Seligman (2004) model with a single item rated on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 = “very strongly disagree” to 7 = “very strongly agree”. An example item is “You are viewed as a creative person; you see, do, and/or create things that are of use; you think of unique ways to solve problems and be productive.” This measurement has been shown to be correlated with the VIA Inventory (r = .40–.70) (McGrath, 2017). Strengths were grouped according to their associated virtues, as defined by Peterson and Seligman (2004).

Procedures

Before conducting this study, Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was sought and obtained. Participants were recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), a widely used online platform for data collection. MTurk offers several advantages over traditional recruitment methods, including (a) access to a more diverse participant pool, (b) rapid and cost-effective recruitment, (c) realistic compensation rates that do not adversely affect data quality, and (d) data reliability comparable to traditional collection methods (Buhrmester et al., 2016).

A convenience sample of individuals with APD was targeted for this study. The inclusion criteria for this study required participants to be a minimum of 18 years of age, a U.S. citizen, and currently experiencing an APD. In addition, individuals with congenital disabilities were excluded from this study. The pre-screening process was automated using the skip logic feature on Qualtrics. Respondents were presented with a brief screening survey to determine their eligibility for the study. Those who did not meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria were directed to the end of the survey. Eligible participants provided informed consent online before beginning the study.

Participants completed a 20-min online survey, including a demographic questionnaire and measures of life satisfaction, disability-related stress, and character strengths. The survey was presented using Qualtrics. The demographic questionnaire was presented first in the survey. The remaining instruments were counterbalanced to mitigate potential order effects (Heiman, 2002). To minimize threats to data integrity, the survey included three attention-check items and two motivation-check items (Meade & Craig, 2012). Surveys from participants who failed to respond appropriately to any of these 5 items were excluded from the final analysis. A total of 298 responses were initially obtained. Of these, 227 passed the data integrity items. Including such quality control measures is an established practice for enhancing data reliability and reducing noise (Oppenheimer et al., 2009). To ensure data quality, responses completed in less than 50% of the expected completion time (<10 min) were excluded. This threshold was established based on pilot testing, where even the fastest conscientious participants required at least this amount of time to thoughtfully complete the survey. Extremely short completion times were considered indicative of insufficient engagement, which could compromise the validity of the data. Entries submitted from duplicate IP addresses were also excluded. This decision was based on the assumption that duplicate entries from the same IP address could indicate one or more of the following issues: (a) repeated participation by the same individual, which could lead to overrepresentation of certain perspectives; (b) collusion among individuals completing the survey together, potentially compromising the independence of responses; or (c) the use of automated bots or scripts to generate multiple responses. While it is possible that some duplicate IP addresses may reflect shared internet access by different individuals (e.g., within a household or public space), a conservative approach was used to prioritize data integrity. This data integrity approach yielded 172 respondents.

Participants received US$1.25 immediately following approval of completion through the MTurk system. Participants who submitted invalid surveys, withdrew from the study, or discontinued participating did not receive financial compensation. All responses were collected anonymously, and participants were assured that their data would remain confidential. Data were securely stored on encrypted servers in compliance with IRB-approved protocols. Participants were informed of their right to withdraw at any time without penalty, and a debriefing form was provided at the conclusion of the study.

Data Screening and Analysis

All data analyses were conducted using SPSS version 29.0. Several diagnostic tests, including examination of missing data, identification of outliers, and examination of normality and multicollinearity of all variables, were conducted prior to data analysis. No measure had higher than 5% of values missing, and mean imputation was used to replace missing values. Given that missing values were below 5% and the design was cross-sectional, mean imputation was deemed acceptable. Multiple imputation was not used because the low proportion of missing data reduces the expected efficiency gains. Seventeen multivariate outliers were detected and removed after Mahalanobis distances were examined. This resulted in a final sample of 165 participants. All variables were deemed to be normally distributed after inspection of skewness and kurtosis values. Examination of the correlations of each of the character strengths with disability-related stress and life satisfaction revealed no issues with respect to multicollinearity.

Twenty-four linear regressions were conducted to test the moderating effects of the 24 character strengths in the Peterson and Seligman (2004) model in the relationship between disability-related stress and life satisfaction. In order to do this, interaction variables were constructed by multiplying disability stress with each of the character strengths. Then, linear regressions were conducted by including disability stress, the character strength, and the corresponding interaction variable in each analysis. Due to the large number of analyses in the study, the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995) was used to control the false discovery rate (FDR), which differs from family-wise error rate adjustments such as Bonferroni. Given the preliminary nature of this line of research and that this is an initial exploratory study, an FDR of .1 was used. Using a relatively liberal FDR threshold increases sensitivity to potentially meaningful effects in exploratory research while accepting a higher probability of false positives. According to McDonald (2014), the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure is as follows: Put the individual p values in order, from smallest to largest. The smallest p value has a rank of i = 1, then the next smallest has i = 2, and so on. Compare each individual p value to its Benjamini-Hochberg critical value, (i/m)Q, where i is the rank, m is the total number of tests, and Q is the false discovery rate you choose. The largest p value that has p < (i/m)Q is significant, and all of the p values smaller than it are also significant, even the ones that aren’t less than their Benjamini-Hochberg critical value (p. 259).

An a priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power 3.1.9.7 (Faul et al., 2007), a software tool for power analysis. Using 25 predictor variables (the 24 character strengths and disability stress), power equal to .80 and an alpha level of .05, the analysis determined that a sample size of 172 would be needed to detect a medium effect size (f ² = .15; Cohen, 1988). The final sample obtained in the present study, 165, while slightly low, was deemed adequate to proceed with the analyses.

Results

Means, standard deviations, and correlations among all character strengths, disability-related stress, and satisfaction with life are presented in Table 3. The results of the 24 moderation analyses are presented in Table 4. As can be seen in the table, the majority of character strengths significantly moderated the relationship between disability-related stress and life satisfaction, such that individuals with higher amounts of the respective strength were less affected by stress. Humor, curiosity, appreciation of beauty and excellence, and social intelligence had the strongest moderating effects. Bravery and prudence did not have a significant moderating effect on the relationship between stress and life satisfaction. Gratitude, humility and leadership originally had a significant moderating effect, but when the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure was applied, their results were no longer significant. An example of a moderation effect (appreciation of beauty) is depicted in Figure 1.

Table 3.

Item Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations of Character Strengths With Disability Related Stress and Satisfaction With Life (n = 165).

Character strength	M (SD)	Disability related stress	Satisfaction with life
Appreciation of Beauty and Excellence	5.38 (1.38)	.27***	.51***
Bravery	4.96 (1.42)	.15	.41***
Creativity	5.33 (1.32)	.21**	.57***
Curiosity	5.39 (1.28)	.12	.43***
Fairness	5.42 (1.43)	.18*	.49***
Forgiveness	5.33 (1.35)	.18*	.47***
Gratitude	5.34 (1.35)	.14	.50***
Honesty	5.45 (1.39)	.23**	.48***
Hope	5.50 (1.38)	.28***	.48***
Humility	5.47 (1.37)	.18*	.50***
Humor	5.33 (1.29)	.24**	.43***
Judgment	5.40 (1.33)	.17*	.49***
Kindness	5.53 (1.35)	.25**	.50***
Leadership	5.38 (1.29)	.23**	.61***
Love	5.39 (1.32)	.23**	.49***
Love of Learning	5.49 (1.37)	.21**	.45***
Perseverance	5.36 (1.35)	.12	.44***
Perspective	5.37 (1.32)	.19*	.52***
Prudence	5.01 (1.50)	.11	.30***
Self-Regulation	5.42 (1.31)	.17*	.47***
Social Intelligence	5.33 (1.34)	.17*	.43***
Spirituality	5.35 (1.42)	.25***	.49***
Teamwork	5.28 (1.40)	.26***	.53***
Zest	5.23 (1.34)	.21**	.53***
	Mean (SD)	56.27(34.71)	27.27(5.63)
	Alpha	.95	.77

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 4.

Moderation Analyses for the Effects of Character Strengths on the Relationship Between Disability Related Stress and Satisfaction With Life (n = 165).

Model	Coeff.	SE	T	p	LLCI	ULCI
Model 1 (Appreciation of Beauty and Excellence) ^a
DRSS	−0.142***	0.039	−3.605	<.001	−0.220	−0.064
Appreciation	0.473	0.465	1.016	.311	−0.446	1.391
DRSS X Appreciation	0.029***	0.007	4.059	<.001	0.015	0.043
Model 2 (Bravery)
DRSS	−0.051	0.041	−1.229	.221	−0.132	0.031
Bravery	0.719	0.510	1.411	.160	−0.288	1.726
DRSS X Bravery	0.014	0.008	1.880	.062	−0.001	0.029
Model 3 (Creativity) ^a
DRSS	−0.132***	0.037	−3.587	<.001	−0.205	−0.059
Creativity	0.993*	0.427	2.325	.021	0.150	1.836
DRSS X Creativity	0.027***	0.007	4.119	<.001	0.014	0.040
Model 4 (Curiosity) ^a
DRSS	−0.154***	0.044	−3.483	<.001	−0.242	−0.067
Curiosity	0.299	0.469	0.638	.524	−0.627	1.23
DRSS X Curiosity	0.033***	0.008	4183	<.001	0.017	0.048
Model 5 (Fairness) ^a
DRSS	−0.114**	0.040	−2.881	.005	−0.192	−0.036
Fairness	0.568	0.444	1.279	.203	−0.309	1.444
DRSS X Fairness	0.025***	0.007	3.508	<.001	.0011	0.038
Model 6 (Forgiveness) ^a
DRSS	−0.122**	0.040	−3.078	.003	−0.200	−0.044
Forgiveness	0.536	0.457	1.172	.243	−0.367	1.438
DRSS X Forgiveness	0.027***	0.007	3.733	<.001	0.013	0.041
Model 7 (Gratitude) ^b
DRSS	−0.062	0.042	−1.501	.135	−0.144	−0.020
Gratitude	1.282**	0.448	2.861	.005	0.397	2.166
DRSS X Gratitude	0.016*	0.007	2.115	.036	0.001	0.030
Model 8 (Honesty) ^a
DRSS	−0.129**	0.041	−3.129	.002	−0.211	−0.48
Honesty	0.526	0.453	1.159	.248	−0.370	1.421
DRSS X Honesty	0.027***	0.007	3.645	<.001	0.012	0.041
Model 9 (Hope) ^a
DRSS	−0.126**	0.043	−2.961	.004	−0.210	−0.042
Hope	0.721	0.448	1.610	.109	−0.164	1.605
DRSS X Hope	0.025***	0.008	3.369	<.001	0.011	0.040
Model 10 (Humility) ^b
DRSS	−0.072	0.043	−1.684	.094	−0.156	0.012
Humility	1.086*	0.489	2.219	.028	0.120	2.052
DRSS X Humility	0.017*	0.008	2.201	.029	0.002	0.031
Model 11 (Humor) ^a
DRSS	−0.163***	0.041	−3.940	<.001	−0.245	−0.081
Humor	0.024	0.489	0.049	.961	−0.941	0.989
DRSS X Humor	0.034***	0.008	4.526	<.001	0.019	0.049
Model 12 (Judgment) ^a
DRSS	−0.121**	0.040	−2.996	.003	−0.200	−0.041
Judgment	0.637	0.461	1.383	.169	−0.272	1.547
DRSS X Judgment	0.026***	0.007	3.640	<.001	0.012	0.040
Model 13 (Kindness) ^a
DRSS	−0.136**	0.041	−3.334	.001	−0.217	−0.056
Kindness	0.499	0.485	1.030	.305	−0.458	1.457
DRSS X Kindness	0.027***	0.007	3.801	<.001	0.013	0.042
Model 14 (Leadership) ^b
DRSS	−0.091*	0.042	−2.176	.031	−0.173	−0.008
Leadership	1.641***	0.459	3.578	<.001	0.735	2.546
DRSS X Leadership	0.019**	0.007	2.523	.013	0.004	0.033
Model 15 (Love) ^a
DRSS	−0.104*	0.043	−2.437	.016	−0.189	−0.020
Love	0.873	0.490	1.784	.076	−0.094	1.840
DRSS X Love	0.022**	0.008	2.894	.004	0.007	0.037
Model 16 (Love of Learning) ^a
DRSS	−0.133**	0.042	−3.151	.002	−0.216	−0.050
Love of Learning	0.376	0.468	0.803	.423	−0.549	1.300
DRSS X Love/Learn	0.028***	0.007	3.722	<.001	0.013	0.042
Model 17 (Perseverance) ^a
DRSS	−0.112*	0.043	−2.581	.011	−0.197	−0.026
Perseverance	0.567	0.467	1.213	.227	−0.356	1.488
DRSS X Perseverance	0.025**	0.008	3.257	.001	0.010	0.041
Model 18 (Perspective) ^a
DRSS	−0.120**	0.039	−3.096	.002	−0.197	−0.044
Perspective	0.741	0.469	1.580	.116	−0.185	1.668
DRSS X Perspective	0.026***	0.007	3.689	<.001	0.012	0.039
Model 19 (Prudence)
DRSS	−0.017	0.040	−0.436	.664	−0.096	0.061
Prudence	0.563	0.501	1.122	.264	−0.428	1.553
DRSS X Prudence	0.009	0.007	1.194	.234	−0.006	0.023
Model 20 (Self-Regulation) ^a
DRSS	−0.129**	0.041	−3.176	.002	−0.209	−0.049
Self-Regulation	0.589	0.456	1.292	.198	−0.311	1.488
DRSS X Self-Reg	0.027***	0.007	3.827	<.001	0.013	0.042
Model 21 (Social Intelligence) ^a
DRSS	−0.134**	0.046	−2.925	.004	−0.225	−0.043
Social Intelligence	0.388	0.481	0.806	.421	−0.563	1.339
DRSS X Social Intel	0.029***	0.008	3.492	<.001	0.013	0.045
Model 22 (Spirituality) ^a
DRSS	−0.102**	0.038	−2.673	.008	−0.178	−0.027
Spirituality	0.819	0.427	1.919	.057	−0.024	1.662
DRSS X Spirituality	0.022**	0.007	3.170	.002	0.008	0.036
Model 23 (Teamwork) ^a
DRSS	−0.099*	0.038	−2.619	.010	−0.173	−0.240
Teamwork	1.022	0.429	2.382	.018	0.175	1.870
DRSS X Teamwork	0.021**	0.007	3.062	.003	0.007	0.034
Model 24 (Zest) ^a
DRSS	−0.101*	0.041	−2.478	.014	−0.182	−0.021
Zest	1.058	0.460	2.300	.023	0.150	1.197
DRSS X Zest	0.022**	0.007	2.966	.004	0.007	0.037

Note. LLCI = Lower Limit Confidence Interval, ULCI = Upper Limit Confidence Interval.

Denotes interactions that are significant. ^bDenotes interactions that are no longer significant after correcting for Type 1 error using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.

Figure 1.

Visual representation of moderation effect of appreciation of beauty and excellence in the relationship between disability related stress and life satisfaction.

Discussion

This study examined the moderating effects of character strengths in the relationship between disability-related stress and life satisfaction in persons with APD. The results provide valuable insights into the ways character strengths may protect against the effects of stress that are brought about due to disability. While the majority of character strengths demonstrated a protective effect, some did not, and others lost significance after statistical corrections. These patterns underscore the complex interplay between individual traits, situational factors, and the unique challenges posed by APD themselves.

Most character strengths in the Peterson and Seligman (2004) framework appeared to act as effective moderators, suggesting their potential as valuable psychological resources for individuals experiencing stress. Humor, for instance, has been widely recognized as a powerful coping mechanism in people with disabilities and chronic illnesses (Nielsen et al., 2024; Voss et al., 2020). By encouraging a lighter perspective and reducing the emotional weight of stress, humor fosters psychological resilience and enhances life satisfaction (Merz et al., 2009). Curiosity, on the other hand, promotes engagement with one’s environment and a willingness to explore new experiences (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). This active, exploratory mindset may counteract the detrimental effects of disability-related challenges (Denneson et al., 2017).

Appreciation of beauty and excellence, which also emerged as a strong moderator, likely fosters mindfulness by helping individuals find joy and meaning in the world around them (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). This strength may encourage a focus on uplifting aspects of life, counterbalancing the negative emotions associated with stress (Bhattarai et al., 2022). Similarly, social intelligence—a strength centered on understanding and navigating social dynamics—can enhance interpersonal relationships and support networks (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Strong social connections are critical for managing stress, as they provide both emotional validation and practical assistance, which can improve overall life satisfaction (Dehghankar et al., 2024; Fisher et al., 2022; Umucu et al., 2023).

However, not all strengths moderated the relationship between disability-related stress and life satisfaction. Bravery and prudence, for instance, did not exhibit significant effects. While bravery involves facing fears and taking risks (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), its utility in moderating disability-related stress may be limited to specific contexts. For instance, bravery might be more relevant in situations requiring assertiveness or advocacy rather than in managing persistent, chronic stressors. Similarly, prudence, characterized by cautious decision-making and foresight, may be more effective in preventing unnecessary stress rather than in alleviating existing stress. These results suggest that the protective effects of these strengths may be context-dependent and less directly tied to emotional resilience in the face of chronic stress.

It is also notable that the effects of gratitude, humility, and leadership, which initially appeared significant, did not remain so after statistically correcting for the likelihood of Type I errors. This indicates that the initial findings for these strengths may reflect weaker or more variable effects. For gratitude, while its role as a buffer against stress in people with disabilities is well-documented (Lee, 2022; Phillips et al., 2022), its effectiveness may depend on an individual’s ability to focus on positive aspects of life amidst significant stress. Similarly, humility’s effects might be more subtle or operate primarily within social contexts (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), making them harder to detect in quantitative analyses. Leadership, often linked to external roles and group dynamics, may not directly mitigate the personal experience of stress but could instead play a more prominent role in collective or advocacy settings.

These findings highlight the differential impact of specific character strengths on the relationship between disability-related stress and life satisfaction. Strengths such as humor, curiosity, appreciation of beauty and excellence, and social intelligence may play particularly significant roles in fostering resilience, while others may be more situationally or contextually effective. The unique challenges of disability-related stress, including societal stigma, accessibility barriers, financial impacts, and chronic health issues, may amplify the need for certain strengths over others. Cultural and environmental factors likely further shape these dynamics, influencing how individuals draw upon their strengths to cope with stress.

Implications for Rehabilitation Counseling Practice

Individuals with APD often face unique challenges (Bogart, 2014), which require tailored intervention approaches. Rehabilitation counselors routinely address these challenges through intake and assessment, vocational planning, and adjustment counseling. This study holds significant implications for professionals working with individuals who have APD. It highlights the stress and reduced life satisfaction often experienced by individuals and underscores the potential benefits of character strength interventions. Identifying and utilizing character strengths can serve as a crucial tool in rehabilitation counseling practice, offering a means to support well-being by providing practical pathways to adaptive coping strategies. The findings reveal that strengths such as humor, curiosity, appreciation of beauty and excellence, and social intelligence serve as powerful psychological resources that promote resilience and improve life satisfaction.

Practitioners can identify character strengths in clients using validated tools such as the VIA Survey (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) or the Global Assessment of Character Strengths (GACS-24; McGrath, 2017), both of which allow for self-reflection and structured assessment of individual strengths. In rehabilitation counseling settings, these tools can be administered during intake or early sessions to inform strengths-based case formulations. Research has shown that identifying one’s signature strengths can lay the foundation for personal growth and goal setting, leading to lasting improvements in well-being (Niemiec, 2014; Seligman et al., 2005). This information may also inform the development of the IPE by aligning vocational goals and services with clients’ strengths and preferences.

In addition to identifying character strengths, research indicates that these traits can be developed through intentional practice. Seligman et al. (2005) demonstrated that encouraging individuals to use their top five strengths in novel ways led to lasting improvements in well-being. For example, creativity can be developed by setting daily challenges to solve problems differently, while appreciation of beauty might be enhanced through mindfulness walks or art-based activities (Niemiec, 2014). Love and social intelligence can be strengthened through exercises in active listening, expressing gratitude, or fostering compassionate relationships (Harzer & Ruch, 2015). Structured interventions and daily practice are central to the intentional development of strengths, and meta-analyses suggest such approaches are effective in reducing depression and improving life satisfaction (Schutte & Malouff, 2019; Yan et al., 2020). Rehabilitation counselors may integrate these strengths-based activities into adjustment counseling, vocational preparation, or employment retention services.

While some strengths, such as bravery and prudence, did not significantly moderate the relationship between stress and life satisfaction in this study, they may still contribute meaningfully to other domains of well-being. For instance, prudence may assist with decision-making and future planning, while bravery may support assertiveness in navigating healthcare or workplace barriers. Thus, practitioners should not discount these strengths but consider their broader relevance to personal growth and life satisfaction outside of the stress-buffering context (Niemiec, 2014; Peterson & Seligman, 2004).

Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study provides important insights into the moderating effects of character strengths on the relationship between disability-related stress and life satisfaction, but several limitations related to the sample and design of the study must be considered. The sample was predominantly White (92.1%) and highly educated, with nearly half of the participants holding a graduate degree. This limited diversity restricts the generalizability of the findings to individuals from more varied racial, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Furthermore, the study excluded those with congenital conditions. While this approach helped isolate the unique stressors of APD, it limits the applicability of the findings to other types of disabilities.

The use of MTurk as a recruitment platform, while offering many advantages such as cost-effectiveness and diverse participant pools, also introduces potential limitations. MTurk workers may not fully represent the broader population of individuals with APD due to factors such as internet access, technological literacy, or motivation for participating in online studies. Additionally, self-reported disability status cannot be independently verified, raising the possibility that some participants may not have met the intended inclusion criteria.

While the cross-sectional design of this study is cost-effective and provides a snapshot of the population being studied, it does not allow for conclusions about causality. Although the findings suggest that character strengths moderate the relationship between stress and life satisfaction, it remains unclear whether these strengths actively buffer stress or if individuals with higher life satisfaction are more likely to develop certain strengths.

Although the use of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to control for Type I errors was a strength of the study, this statistical correction may have excluded findings with subtle but meaningful effects. For instance, strengths like gratitude and humility initially appeared significant but did not meet the adjusted significance threshold. Future studies with larger sample sizes may be able to detect these subtler effects more reliably.

Future research should aim to broaden the application of character strengths interventions for individuals with APD. One important direction involves studying more diverse populations, including those from varied racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds. The current study’s focus on a predominantly White and highly educated sample limits its generalizability, and expanding the scope could provide a richer understanding of how cultural and contextual factors shape the relationship between character strengths, stress, and life satisfaction. Additionally, future studies should explore intersectional factors such as age, gender, and co-morbid conditions to better understand how these variables interact with character strengths to impact well-being.

Longitudinal and experimental designs are also needed to provide a deeper understanding of causality and long-term effects. For example, future studies could examine the long-term benefits of developing specific strengths such as humor or curiosity, which showed strong moderating effects in this study. Investigating how these strengths are developed and sustained under varying stress conditions could deepen our understanding of their role in building resilience. Incorporating technological tools, such as mobile apps or virtual platforms, could also make strengths-based interventions more accessible to individuals with APD, particularly those in rural or underserved communities. These directions would provide meaningful contributions to improving support systems and enhancing life satisfaction for this population.

Conclusion

This study underscores the critical role of character strengths in moderating the relationship between disability-related stress and life satisfaction among individuals with APD. Given the significant challenges associated with disability, understanding how to support individuals with APD is essential for enhancing well-being and fostering empowerment. Through these efforts, we can provide more effective support that enhances resilience and life satisfaction, empowering individuals to thrive in the face of adversity.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Susan M. Smedema

Deborah J. Ebener

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Baker

P. M.

Linden

M. A.

LaForce

S. S.

Rutledge

Goughnour

K. P.

(2018). Barriers to employment participation of individuals with disabilities: Addressing the impact of employer (mis) perception and policy. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(5), 657–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218768868

Benjamini

Hochberg

(1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 57(1), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x

Bhattarai

Smedema

S. M.

Hoyt

W. T.

Bishop

(2022). The role of mindfulness in quality of life of persons with spinal cord injury: A cross-sectional study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 20(1), 148. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-02059-w

Bogart

K. R.

(2014). The role of disability self-concept in adaptation to congenital or acquired disability. Rehabilitation Psychology, 59(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035800

Buhrmester

Kwang

Gosling

S. D.

(2016). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? In Kazdin

A. E.

(Ed.), Methodological issues and strategies in clinical research (4th ed., pp. 133–139). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14805-009

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023). Disability impacts all of us. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/infographic-disability-impacts-all.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2025). Prevalence of disabilities and health care access by disability status and type. https://www.cdc.gov/disability-and-health/articles-documents/disabilities-health-care-access.html

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen

Williamson

(1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In Spacapan

Oskamp

(Eds.), The social psychology of health (pp. 31–67). Sage.

10.

Cree

R. A.

Okoro

C. A.

Zack

M. M.

Carbone

E. G.

(2020). Frequent mental distress among adults, by disability status, disability type, and selected characteristics —United States, 2018. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 69(36), 1238–1243. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6936a2

11.

Dehghankar

Valinezhad

Amerzadeh

Zarabadi Poor

Hosseinkhani

Motalebi

S. A.

(2024). Relationship between perceived social support and disability with the mediating role of perceived stress among older adults. BMC Geriatrics, 24(1), Article 276. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-04871-z

12.

Denneson

L. M.

Smolenski

D. J.

Bush

N. E.

Dobscha

S. K.

(2017). Curiosity improves coping efficacy and reduces suicidal ideation severity among military veterans at risk for suicide. Psychiatry Research, 249, 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.01.018

13.

Dennison

Moss-Morris

Chalder

(2009). A review of psychological correlates of adjustment in patients with multiple sclerosis. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(2), 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.12.001

14.

Diener

Emmons

R. A.

Larsen

R. J.

Griffin

(1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

15.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A. G.

Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146

16.

Fisher

M. H.

Sung

Kammes

R. R.

Okyere

Park

(2022). Social support as a mediator of stress and life satisfaction for people with intellectual or developmental disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities: JARID, 35(1), 243–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12943

17.

Gander

Wagner

(2020). Character growth following collective life events? A study on perceived and measured changes in character strengths during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/hm5at

18.

Gilchrist

A. C.

Creed

F. H.

(1994). Depression, cognitive impairment and social stress in multiple sclerosis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38(3), 193–201.

19.

Hanks

R. A.

Rapport

L. J.

Waldron-Perrine

Millis

S. R.

(2014). Role of character strengths in outcome after mild complicated to severe traumatic brain injury: A positive psychology study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 95(11), 2096–2102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2014.06.017

20.

Harzer

Ruch

(2015). The relationships of character strengths with coping, work-related stress, and job satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 165. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00165

21.

Heiman

G. W.

(2002). Research methods in psychology (3rd ed.). Houghton Mifflin.

22.

Huang

(2022). Investigating mental well-being levels of physically disabled people compared to people without disabilities. In Proceedings of the 2022 5th International Conference on Humanities Education and Social Sciences (ICHESS2022) (pp. 2390–2400). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-494069-89-3_275

23.

Hughes

R. B.

Taylor

H. B.

Robinson-Whelen

Nosek

M. A.

(2005). Stress and women with physical disabilities: Identifying correlates. Women’s Health Issues, 15(1), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2004.09.001

24.

Iwasaki

Mactavish

J. B.

(2005). Ubiquitous yet unique: Perspectives of people with disabilities on stress. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 48(4), 194–208. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/00343552050480040101

25.

Kagan

Itzick

Tal-Katz

(2018). Demographic, psychosocial, and health-and disability-related factors associated with psychological distress among people with physical disabilities. Rehabilitation Psychology, 63(3), 392–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000206

26.

Lee

(2022). A serial mediation model of gratitude on life satisfaction in people with multiple sclerosis: The intermediary role of perceived stress and mental health symptoms. Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, 58, 103421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2021.103421

27.

Lee

Chang

Chun

Lee

Niemiec

Umucu

(2024). Character strengths and employment in persons with disabilities: A national survey study. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 21(1), 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2024.2427586

28.

Lee

Reyes

Rumrill

Bishop

(2023). The intermediary role of optimism and mental health in the relationship between disability-related stress and life satisfaction: A serial mediation model. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 67(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/00343552221080434

29.

Lopez

S. J.

Pedrotti

J. T.

Snyder

C. R.

(2019). Positive psychology: The scientific and practical exploration of human strengths (4th ed.). Sage.

30.

Martínez-Martí

Theirs

Pascual

Corradi

(2020). Character strengths predict an increase in mental health and subjective well-being over a one-month period during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 584567. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.584567

31.

McDonald

J. H.

(2014). Handbook of biological statistics (3rd ed.). Sparky House Publishing.

32.

McGrath

R. E.

(2017). Technical report: The VIA assessment suite for adults: Development and evaluation. VIA Institute on Character.

33.

Meade

A. W.

Craig

S. B.

(2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028085

34.

Merz

E. L.

Malcarne

V. L.

Hansdottir

Furst

D. E.

Clements

P. J.

Weisman

M. H.

(2009). A longitudinal analysis of humor coping and quality of life in systemic sclerosis. Psychology, Health, & Medicine, 14(5), 553–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548500903111798

35.

Nielsen

Görtz

Aschermann

Saliger

Hennecken

Eschweiler

Karbe

Kalbe

Folkerts

A. K.

(2024). Exploring humor as a coping factor against depressive mood and fear of progression in people with multiple sclerosis with moderate disability: A cross-sectional analysis of a rehabilitation cohort. Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, 91, 105906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2024.105906

36.

Niemiec

R. M.

(2023). Mental health and character strengths: The dual role of boosting well-being and reducing suffering. Mental Health and Social Inclusion, 27(4), 294–316. https://doi.org/10.1108/MHSI-01-2023-0012

37.

Niemiec

R. M.

(2014). Mindfulness and character strengths. Hogrefe Publishing.

38.

Niemiec

R. M.

Shogren

K. A.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

(2017). Character strengths and intellectual and developmental disability: A strengths-based approach from positive psychology. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 52(1), 13–25. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2642032

39.

Oppenheimer

Meyvis

Davidenko

(2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867–872.

40.

Peterson

Seligman

M. E. P.

(2004). Characters strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford University Press; American Psychological Association.

41.

Phillips

B. N.

Fleming

A. R.

Bean

Umucu

Lee

Roundtree

S. M.

Grenawalt

T. A.

(2022). Relations among gratitude, adaptation to disability, and flourishing among adults with disabilities: A longitudinal mediation model. Rehabilitation Psychology, 67(4), 546–555. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000448

42.

Phillips

B. N.

Smedema

S. M.

Fleming

A. R.

Sung

Allen

M. G.

(2015). Mediators of disability and hope for people with spinal cord injury. Disability and Rehabilitation, 38(17), 1672–1683. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2015.1107639

43.

Rhode

P. C.

Froehlich-Grobe

Hockemeyer

J. R.

Carlson

J. A.

Lee

(2012). Assessing stress in disability: Developing and piloting the Disability Related Stress Scale. Disability and Health Journal, 5(3), 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2012.03.002

44.

Schneiderman

Ironson

Siegel

S. D.

(2005). Stress and health: Psychological, behavioral, and biological determinants. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1(1), 607–628. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.144141

45.

Schutte

N. S.

Malouff

J. M.

(2019). The impact of signature character strengths interventions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(4), 1179–1196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-9990-2

46.

Seligman

M. E. P.

Steen

T. A.

Park

Peterson

(2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.410

47.

Shogren

K. A.

Shaw

L. A.

Raley

S. K.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Niemiec

R. M.

Adkins

(2018). Assessing character strengths in youth with intellectual disability: Reliability and factorial validity of the VIA-Youth. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 56, 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-56.1.13

48.

Smedema

S. M.

(2020). An analysis of the relationship of character strengths and quality of life in persons with multiple sclerosis. Quality of Life Research, 29, 1259–1270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02397-1

49.

Smedema

S. M.

Bhattarai

(2021). The unique contribution of character strengths to quality of life in persons with multiple sclerosis. Rehabilitation Psychology, 66(1), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000363

50.

Tehranchi

Neshat Doost

H. T.

Amiri

Power

M. J.

(2018). The role of character strengths in depression: A structural equation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1609. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01609

51.

Umucu

Lee

Berwick

O’Neill

L. E.

Chan

Chen

(2023). Reducing the influence of perceived stress on subjective well-being of student veterans with and without disabilities: The protective role of positive traits and social support. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 67(1), 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/00343552221077942

52.

Umucu

Lee

Genova

Chopik

Sung

Yasuoka

Niemiec

(2022). Character strengths across disabilities: An international exploratory study and implications for positive psychiatry and psychology. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, Article 863977. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.863977

53.

Umucu

Lee

Vargas-Medrano

Diaz-Pacheco

Misra

Martin

Thompson

Gadad

B. S.

(2021). Is gratitude associated with suicidal ideation in veterans with mental illness and student veterans with PTSD symptoms? The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 210(1), 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1097/nmd.0000000000001406

54.

Umucu

Tansey

Brooks

Lee

(2020). The protective role of character strengths in COVID-19 stress and well-being in individuals with chronic conditions and disabilities: An exploratory study. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 64(2), 67–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034355220967093

55.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022). TED: The economy daily. https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2022/19-1-percent-of-people-with-a-disability-were-employed-in-2021.htm

56.

Voss

Wild

von Hirschhausen

Fuchs

Ong

(2020). Effekt von Humortraining auf Stress, Heiterkeit und Depression bei Patienten mit koronarer Herzkrankheit und therapierefraktärer Angina pectoris [Effect of humor training on stress, cheerfulness and depression in patients with coronary artery disease and refractory angina pectoris]. Herz, 45(Suppl. 1), 80–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00059-019-4813-8

57.

Węziak-Białowolska

Białowolski

VanderWeele

T. J.

McNeely

(2021). Character strengths involving an orientation to promote good can help your health and well-being. Evidence from two longitudinal studies. American Journal of Health Promotion, 35(3), 388–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890117120964083

58.

Yan

Chan

C. W. H.

Chow

K. M.

Zheng

Sun

(2020). A systematic review of the effects of character strengths-based intervention on the psychological well-being of patients suffering from chronic illnesses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 76(7), 1567–1580. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14356

59.

Zautra

A. J.

Hoffman

Potter

Matt

K. S.

Yocum

Castro

(1997). Examination of changes in interpersonal stress as a factor in disease exacerbations among women with rheumatoid arthritis. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 19(3), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02892292

60.

Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J.

Skinner

E. A.

(2016). The development of coping: Implications for psychopathology and resilience. In Cicchetti

(Ed.), Developmental psychopathology (pp. 1–61). John Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119125556.devpsy410