Students' Usage of Strengths and General Happiness Are Connected via School-Related Factors

Previous research has shown that there is a link between usage of strengths and various positive outcomes, such as finding meaning and happiness in life. In our present study, we aimed to find out how usage of strengths is connected to general happiness with school-related factors as mediating variables. 418 Finnish students aged 10–16 filled a self-report questionnaire consisting of measures of usage of strengths, school engagement, school-related happiness and general happiness. A structural equation model was built to investigate the relationships between the variables. It turned out that 53% of students' overall happiness could be explained by the model. Usage of strengths was both directly and indirectly related to general happiness, emphasising the importance of using one's strengths in schoolwork.

Keywords: Usage of strengths; students' happiness; school-related happiness; school engagement; Finland

During the past two decades, there has been a shift from a deficit-centred pedagogy to a more positive perspective, with an emphasis on students' individual strengths and well-being (Seligman et al., [67]; Sin & Lyubomirsky, [68]; Stiglbauer et al., [69]; Vuorinen et al., [80]). Happy children learn best is a statement uttered by UNICEF ([75]), OECD ([45]) and several international educational boards (Finnish National Agency for Education, [15]; Salzburg Global Seminar, [64]). The statement is backed by a plenitude of studies (Csikszentmihalyi, [8]; Fredrickson, [17], [18]; Heffner & Antaramian, [27]; Nickerson et al., [41]; Oishi et al., [47]). Happiness brings willingness and energy to pursue and achieve goals, to engage in learning and to live a fulfilling life (Seligman, [66]). Happiness is a concept with various interpretations and subcategories, the most common being hedonic and eudaimonic happiness (e.g., Deci & Ryan, [13]). In the research literature, happiness is often replaced by subjective well-being, a concept originally introduced by Diener ([14]; see also Lyubomirsky & Lepper, [37]). Subjective well-being consists of three parts: a cognitive component (life satisfaction) and emotional components (positive and negative affect). In our current study, we have adopted this definition of happiness. Thus, happiness is used as a synonym for subjective well-being.

Happiness among adults has been rigorously studied (e.g., David et al., [12]), and today, also among children and youth (Holder, [29]; for reviews, see Furlong et al., [19]; Pollard & Lee, [52]; Suldo, [70]). The correlates of youth happiness equal those of adults; demographic factors such as race, gender or age have a minor role compared to personal characteristics. Self-esteem, an internal locus of control (Gilman & Huebner, [22]), extraversion, low neuroticism (Heaven, [26]; Huebner, [31]) and emotional stability (Rigby & Huebner, [57]) have been shown to be the best predictors of youth happiness. Social relationships, popularity among peers, physical activity and spirituality greatly influence the affective component of youth happiness (Holder, [29], pp. 35–37). The cognitive component, being satisfied with one's life, arises from circumstantial factors, such as scholastic competence (Danielsen et al., [10]) and academic grades (Holder, [29], p. 36). Since school is a crucial place both for learning and for making friends, it is obvious that school-related factors greatly influence youth happiness.

Interpretations of what defines a happy life may be influenced by cultural differences and history making measuring happiness and comparing happiness levels challenging (Hendriks et al., [28]). Negative or positive events, if sufficient time has elapsed, may become benchmarks for judging the present (Ivens, [32], p. 222). For example, the newest PISA (the Programme for International Student Assessment, OECD, [46]) results show high happiness among the 15-year-old in Kosovo and in Dominican Republic perhaps reflective of the past misery (the war in Kosovo, 1998–1999, and the earthquake in Haiti, 2010). Thus, feeling privileged of "being alive" and experiencing great improvements in the living conditions dominates one's judgements of happiness. In a welfare country like Finland, factors behind youth happiness lie on more individualistic, self-actualisation assuring level (Uusitalo-Malmivaara, [77], [78]).

Overall, the great majority of children seem happy, and irrespective of culture, happiness seems to decline when entering puberty (OECD, [45]; Uusitalo-Malmivaara, [78]). Also, the antecedents of happiness change (e.g., Fortin et al., [16]; Suldo, [70]). The same was indicated in a Finnish study, in which 700 12-year-old students were asked what would increase their happiness (Uusitalo-Malmivaara, [77]). The students could choose from a list of 12 putative items that make people happy what they felt increased their own happiness. It appeared that the most desirable happiness-increasing factor was better success in school (47.6% of respondents chose it). When the same students were examined at the age of 15, both overall and school-related happiness had declined. Furthermore, 60.5% of the 300 respondents chose "better success in school" as their most desired happiness-increasing factor (Uusitalo-Malmivaara, [78]). Among both 12- and 15-year old respondents, the choices were dependent on the level of their overall happiness. More often than others, the least happy 12-year-old students wanted to have more friends, better looks, more money and a peaceful family life. The least happy 15-year-old desired better looks, a girl- or a boyfriend and diminished alcohol consumption among their family members or themselves. Thus, it seems clear that after having basic needs fulfilled, such as having safe and warm social relationships, other issues increase in importance when considering happiness. School is among the most noticeable of them.

Children spend a large part of their waking time at school. Experiences at school are important not only for learning but also for personal growth and in finding one's place in a society (e.g., Norrish et al., [43]). Furthermore, what happens at school greatly predicts students' future mental and physical health, quality of social relationships, job aspirations and overall life satisfaction (Adamson, [1]; Bradshaw et al., [4]; Currie et al., [9]; Gutman & Vorhaus, [24]; Rees & Main, [56]). Happiness in the school context arises from academic, psychological and social factors that are intertwined and affect each other (Suldo et al., [71]).

Previous studies have shown that overall happiness and school-related happiness are tightly connected (Uusitalo-Malmivaara, [77]) and their interconnectedness increases when children enter puberty (Uusitalo-Malmivaara, [78]). Accordingly, school plays a key role in providing vital competencies for the future and in being a potential source of joy and fulfilment for everyday living. Furthermore, school is the primary place to cultivate self-efficacy, the belief in one's ability to reach goals (Bandura, [3]). Self-efficacy is positively associated with happiness as it gives one a sense of competence (e.g., Lucas et al., [36]). In Spain, López-Pérez and Fernández-Castilla ([34]) asked 9–10-year-old and 15–16-year-old students to conceptualise their happiness at school. Being with friends and getting good grades were the most common concepts. The younger respondents valued friends the most, the older respondents preferred good grades. It seems that students' perceptions of their academic abilities, teacher support and overall satisfaction with school are strong correlates of personal happiness (Gilman & Huebner, [22]; Suldo et al., [72]). IQ, mental disabilities or diagnosed learning difficulties do not predict diminished personal happiness (Brantley et al., [5]; McCullough & Huebner, [39]; Suldo et al., [72]). In the current study, we have conceptualised school-related happiness as an entity of socio-emotional and cognitive factors that involve students' perceptions of social acceptance among peers and satisfaction with learning circumstances.

International comparisons show cultural differences in factors connected to school-related happiness. Formal learning credit seems to be of greater importance to Korean than for US students (Park & Huebner, [48]). Globally, most students report being happy with their schooling (Brantley et al., [5]; Ivens, [32]; McCullough & Huebner, [39]; Uusitalo-Malmivaara, [77]). In Finland however, recent evidence has shown that adolescents may not be emotionally engaged at school and boredom and cynicism are common (Upadyaya & Salmela-Aro, [76]). Although Finnish students have done well in international academic comparisons, 15-year-old Finnish students ranked 60 out of 65 countries for how much they like school (PISA 2012; see OECD, [44]).

School engagement is defined as a multidimensional construct of an emotional (energy), cognitive (dedication), and behavioural (absorption) components and can be seen as an antidote to school related burnout (Salmela-Aro & Upadaya, [62]). The emotional component refers to a student's enjoyment in school-related challenges. The cognitive component entails students' willingness to put cognitive effort into the tasks at hand. The behavioural component refers to involvement in schoolwork and study-related assignments (Tuominen-Soini & Salmela-Aro, [74]). Students who feel engaged have a positive approach to schoolwork, they perceive studying at school as meaningful, and they concentrate on studying so that the time passes quickly. The concept of school engagement has often been used interchangeably with study engagement (e. g., Salmela-Aro & Read, [61]).

School-related happiness and school engagement are connected but still separate concepts (e.g., Ivens, [32]). School-related happiness taps into socio-emotional safety in the school environment whereas school engagement entails commitment in actual schoolwork, that is, studying and learning. According to Diener ([14]), happiness (or subjective well-being) is a tripartite construct of positive and negative affect and life satisfaction. In the present study, the constructs of school-related happiness and school engagement have been used to cover all three parts of a student's happiness. We argue that both these constructs contribute to overall happiness in a student's life and both are fuelled by being able to use one's strengths.

Interest in human character was revieved in the advent of positive psychology. In their seminal work Character Strengths and Virtues, A handbook and classification Peterson and Seligman ([51]) reformulated Aristotelian theory of good character, one that strives towards virtuous living through exercising character strengths. Personal strengths are considered to be positive traits shown through one's feelings, thoughts and authentic behaviour (Park et al., [49]). They have a genetic component, but they are malleable and develop in interaction with environmental support. Studies provide evidence that people who are aware of their strengths are more likely to live a more meaningful and satisfying life, to achieve positive outcomes in their strivings and to perform better academically (Datu, [11]; Gillham et al., [21]; Proctor et al., [53]; Seligman, [65]; Weber & Ruch, [81]). In addition, studies among individuals living extraordinary lives reveal the single most illustrating factor, "the ability to identify their strengths and then to exploit them" (Gardner, [20], p. 15). According to Peterson and Seligman ([51], p. 17), a strength contributes to various fulfilments that constitute a good life, for oneself and for others. Consequently, not being able to utilise one's strengths, whether in schoolwork, in paid work or in life in general, may lead to dissatisfaction, boredom or even burnout.

Playing to one's strengths seems to contribute significantly to meeting basic human needs, such as feeling competent, autonomous and able to relate to others (Ryan & Deci, [59]). As stated by Govindji and Linley ([23], p. 150), "people seem to have intrinsic motivation and a yearning to use their strengths, and when they do so, they experience authenticity, vitality and well-being". Importantly, strengths are subject to learning. Students' academic abilities should be developed in unison with their character, teaching them to acknowledge and use their strengths (Peterson, [50]). In the Finnish National Core curriculum for basic education (FNBE, [15], p. 16) it is stated that students should be guided to becoming aware of their personal habits of learning and using this knowledge to promote their own learning. Teachers should help the students understand and recognise their own strengths and development needs. However, it is not known how explicit the teaching of strengths is in Finnish schools.

Few studies have examined the relationships between students' usage of strengths, school life in terms of both school-related happiness and school engagement, and general happiness. Previous research indicates that students' usage of personal strengths is related to positive well-being outcomes such as improved mental health and absorption in school-work (Bromley et al., [6]; Proctor et al., [54]; Quinlan et al., [55]), and academic success in terms of student satisfaction and academic performance (Lounsbury et al., [35]). Furthermore, academic success has been shown to predict later well-being outcomes (Salmela-Aro & Upadyaya, [63]). For that reason, we find it justified to ask the following questions:

• How is students' usage of strengths directly related to school engagement and school-related happiness?
• How is students' usage of strengths directly related to general happiness?
• How is students' usage of strengths indirectly related to general happiness through school engagement and school-related happiness?

Specifically, we hypothesise that having an understanding of how to use one's strengths would be reflected as having a positive study-related state of mind, that is, a positive relation to school engagement (Hypothesis 1A) and having a wide range of positive emotions linked to School-related happiness (Hypothesis 1B). In addition, we expect that usage of strengths would be positively related to general happiness (Hypothesis 2). Finally, we hypothesise that an indirect positive relationship would be found from usage of strengths to overall happiness via school engagement (Hypothesis 3A) and School-related happiness (Hypothesis 3B).

The data used in the present study were collected between September and December 2015 in nine comprehensive schools (the Finnish school system consists of a 9-year compulsory basic comprehensive school, starting at age seven and ending at the age of 16), in southern Finland. The consenting participants (N = 418; Male = 206, Female = 212, mean age 11.7) from classes in grades 4 to 9 were asked to complete an anonymous online Finnish self-report questionnaire during regular school hours. As far as we know, none of the respondents had attended explicit strength teaching or other positive education lessons before participation in the study. Informed consent was obtained from students' custodians, school principals and the municipality. Research ethics followed the recommendations of the Finnish advisory board on research integrity.

In the questionnaire, students' usage of strengths, school engagement, school-related happiness and overall happiness were assessed. See Table 1 for descriptive values and internal consistencies for the measures.

Table 1. Summary of Descriptive Statistics and internal consistencies.

Note: *Bias-corrected and accelerated (BCA) bootstrap with 10 000 draws.

Usage of strengths was measured by the Strengths Use Scale (SUS, Govindji & Linley, [23]). The originally 14-item self-report scale with a 5-point Likert scale (I totally agree—I do not agree at all) is designed to measure individual strengths use in various settings. Here, a shortened 5-item version suitable for a school context was applied. Some items of the scale tapped into an adult's perspective of life (e.g., I use my strengths to get what I want out of life) and were deleted for that reason. The shortened version of the scale was translated into Finnish and pilot-tested in our former school study (Vuorinen et al., [80]). Shortening the questionnaire did not violate its internal consistency (see Table 1). The items proved the frequency of strengths use, e.g., I can use my strengths every day at school, and knowledge of strengths use, e.g., Using my strengths is something I am familiar with.

School engagement was assessed by using the School Engagement Inventory which consists of three subscales, energy, dedication and absorption (EDA, originally a Finnish measure by Salmela-Aro & Upadaya, [62]). Each of the subscales includes three items,i.e., When I study, I feel I'm bursting with energy (energy subscale), I am enthusiastic about my studies (dedication subscale), and Time flies when I'm studying (absorption subscale). However, EDA is generally specified as a unidimensional measurement model (Salmela-Aro & Upadaya, [62]) indicating a general study-related positive state of mind. EDA items are rated on a scale ranging from 0 (= never) to 6 (= every day).

School-related happiness was measured by using the School Children's Happiness Inventory (SCHI, from Ivens, [32]). SCHI is a context-related questionnaire of 30 items (e.g., I felt relaxed; I felt confident). Each response to each SCHI item is scored from 1 to 4, with 4 indicating a high level of happiness. In the self-report questionnaire, we used the shortened 13-item Finnish version with positive statements only (Uusitalo-Malmivaara, [77], [78]). Shortening the questionnaire did not violate its internal consistency (see Table 1). It was shortened in order to delete overlapping statements and to keep the overall number of items suitable for younger children.

General happiness was assessed by the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) from Lyubomirsky and Lepper ([37]). SHS is a 4-item test with a 7-point Likert scale response format (e.g., In general, I consider myself: not a very happy person—a very happy person). In the current study, the fourth, reversed item was not included due to a low alpha found in previous studies (Uusitalo-Malmivaara, [77]; Uusitalo-Malmivaara & Lehto, [79]). The reversed items seem to be problematic for younger respondents leading to consistent misunderstandings. Also, in other studies (see e.g., Holder & Coleman, [30]) the wording of the scale originally meant for "adults" has been changed to ease the responding of children.

Missing values and outliers were analysed using the IBM SPSS 25. All other analyses were conducted using R statistical software (Team, [73]). The measurement model was specified and tested by confirmatory factor approach (CFA). All items were allowed to load on their corresponding factor only (Byrne, [7]). Maximum likelihood with standard errors robust for non-normality (MLR) was used as the estimator and missing data were handled with full information maximum likelihood estimation (FIML). The chi-square value as well as the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) with an approximate acceptable cut-off value of less than.08, standardised root mean residual (SRMR) with an approximate cut-off or less than.08, and, incremental indexes such as the comparative fit index (CFI) and the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) with approximate acceptable cut-off values of greater than.9, were used to evaluate the model fits. Differential item functioning across age was evaluated by regressing each latent factor on age and examining the change in model fit as well as investigating the modification indices for suggested direct effects between age and the factor indicators. Given the hierarchical nature of the data, that is, students nested in classrooms, we controlled for the data structure to gain standard errors that take the hierarchical structure of the data into account (see Muthén & Satorra, [40]).

In order to answer our research questions, we specified a structural equation model in which the usage of strengths was specified as an exogenous latent variable, school engagement and school-related happiness as mediating latent variables and general happiness as the ultimate endogenous latent variable. All structural equation modelling analyses were conducted using the R package lavaan (Rosseel, [58]), which uses the delta method for estimating the standard errors for the indirect effects (Mayer et al., [38]).

There were 0.84% values missing from the sample. Based on Little's MCAR test, missing was completely random (χ² (39) = 35.21, p =.644). No univariate or multivariate outliers were observed. The goodness of fit for the baseline measurement model as well as the invariance across gender and age were evaluated. Model fit indices as well as the factor loadings and r2 for the baseline measurement model are presented in Appendix A. The baseline model in which we allowed for one item from SRH to have a secondary loading on EDA as well as a residual covariance between two similarly worded items in SUS, fit the data well (χ2(397) = 755.28(1.18), p <.001, RMSEA =.046 (.042–.051), CFI =.943, TLI =.938, SRMR =.047). Latent variable correlations are shown in Table 2. Regarding measurement invariance across gender, the results indicated that there were no considerable differences in the measurement model between boys and girls. Then, to examine differential item functioning in regard to age, we regressed each latent factor on age. The model fit did not decline and the modification indices did not suggest any considerable direct effects between the factor indicators and age. Based on the preliminary analysis the measurement model was considered sufficiently invariant across gender and age (for details, see Appendix B). However, as there were both mean differences across gender as well as effects of age on the latent constructs these were used as covariates in the structural model.

Table 2. Latent variable correlations.

*** p <.001.

We then proceeded to evaluate the structural model with gender and age included as covariates, the model fit the data well (χ2(449) = 871.75(1.15), p <.001, RMSEA =.047 (.043–.052), CFI =.935, TLI =.929, SRMR =.047).

The overall explained variance of general happiness by the model was 53% (Figure 1). All unstandardised path coefficients are presented in Table 3. As we expected, the usage of strengths, school engagement and school-related happiness were all positively related to general happiness. In line with our hypotheses 1A and 1B, the usage of strengths was positively related to both school engagement and school-related happiness, respectively. Furthermore, in line with our hypothesis 2, the usage of strengths was directly related to general happiness. Finally, as expected in our hypotheses 3A and 3B, an indirect relationship from usage of strengths to general happiness via school engagement and school-related happiness was detected.

Graph: Figure. 1. Model with usage of strengths as exogenous latent variable and school engagement, school-related happiness and general happiness as endogenous latent variables with gender and age as covariates.

Table 3. Unstandardised path coefficients.

The present study examined how being able to utilise one's strengths is linked to general happiness directly and indirectly through school engagement and school-related happiness in 10–16-year-old students. In line with our hypotheses, the results indicated that being able to use one's strengths was related to both higher school engagement and feelings of happiness at school, which both contributed to general happiness. Up to 53% of the variance of general happiness could be explained by the model suggesting a tight connection between successful study life and overall well-being in childhood and adolescence. As far as we know, this is one of the few studies clearly evidencing the benefits of usage of strengths to school well-being in terms of school engagement, school-related happiness and general happiness. Our results reflect previous research in underlining the importance of strength knowledge in schoolwork (Peterson, [50]; White & Waters, [82]).

Several limitations of the current study should be noted. First, the concept of strength in the Strength Usage Scale (Govindji & Linley, [23]) is not specified. Thus, when asking about strengths, it is possible that character strengths (Peterson & Seligman, [51]) or more general definitions of strengths in schoolwork or elsewhere in life may come to a respondent's mind instead. Second, shortening scales, albeit validated before, limits the chances of making comparisons with other studies applying the original scales. Third, causality cannot be deduced from the cross-sectional setting. Thus, it needs to be noted that the effects could very well be the other way around or ever reciprocal. For instance, students with higher school-related happiness may be more able to recognise and utilise their strengths at school. In addition, students expressing high levels of overall happiness could also experience higher engagement and happiness in school. Fourth, although our sample was reasonably large and consisted of students across various ages and diverse learning skills, it was not representative of the population. The great age-span in our respondents can also be viewed as a challenge. Since entering puberty commonly shows in a decrease in overall happiness (OECD, [45]; Uusitalo-Malmivaara, [78]), the connection between usage of strengths and happiness might also change. This could be a topic of future studies. To summarise, in the current study we merely had a convenient sample, which limits opportunities for generalising the results.

Most of the respondents in the present study seemed happy, both globally and in the school-context. This is in concordance with previous research (Holder, [29]; Uusitalo-Malmivaara, [77], [78]). In future research, the possible variation between both individuals and schools needs to be examined in more detail in a multilevel setting. It seems plausible that some schools are more capable than others in producing student happiness and better academic results because of strength-based learning (White & Waters, [82]). Furthermore, in order to examine our present hypotheses properly, the actual behaviour related to use of strengths in schools should be observed. What kind of implementation of curricula and practical instruction is needed in order to create a strength-promoting school culture? Acquiring multiple sources of data and going beyond self-report questionnaires would be desirable since subjective self-report measures give one-sided information. Longitudinal research designs which combine qualitative and quantitative data sources are necessary if we want to gain a more complete picture of how strength-usage is being taught and what strength-usage truly means in schoolwork.

Based on findings in the present study, we argue that teaching students first to recognise and then utilise their strengths is highly valuable both in terms of successful school life and general happiness. As extensively studied by Salmela-Aro and her colleagues, school-related cynicism is manifested in an indifferent or a distant attitude toward schoolwork in general, a loss of interest in one's academic work, and not perceiving it as meaningful (Salmela-Aro et al., [60]). Could it be that being unable to use one's strengths would be a major factor in feeling cynical about school? Plenty of proven methods have been developed to teach well-being, strengths and virtuous character (Linkins et al., [33]; Proctor et al., [54]; Seligman et al., [67]; Vuorinen et al., [80]). As formulated by Peterson ([50], p. 284), "schools should go beyond the police department" and develop into being enabling institutions with moral goals in addition to academic ones. In addition, it is now important to develop education policies to put more emphasis on the positive attributes that define the success of students (Huebner et al., [25]).

In the past 15 years, curricular documents worldwide have developed into a more holistic way of teaching. The so-called twenty-first century skills (e.g., Ananiadou & Claro, [2]) emphasise generic competencies such as social skills and creativity, skills that equal strengths of character. All of them are skills that can and should be taught in all schools, as concepts and as ways of acting. The aim of placing strengths in the spotlight is to direct the focus on competencies instead of weakness, a much-needed change in traditional school life. However, much remains to be done. Despite positive education programmes and written recommendations being available, only a few local initiatives and institutes exist with a truly strength-based approach in their curricula (e.g., Geelong Grammar School (Victoria, Australia), see Norrish & Seligman, [42]). Most schools still lack knowledge of how to implement positive education in their often very discipline-driven lesson plans.

Studies like ours are necessary to prove the significance of usage of strengths in schoolwork. However, much teacher training and in some cases, major changes in criteria in student assessment are needed. Parental consent and support in orienting the curriculum towards holistic well-being is a prerequisite for successful school development. We are looking forward to conducting action studies engaging whole schools where the change in learning culture can be evidenced on individual, institutional and structural levels. Measurements of academic learning and student happiness are required in settings comprising a variety of students, including those with special needs. Explicit teaching of usage of personal strengths is at the core when trying to bring out the best in every student irrespective of hindrances such as learning difficulties or developmental challenges (Linkins et al., [33]; Seligman et al., [67]). Strength-based classrooms can equip students with sources of resilience and tools to live a meaningful life even after school.

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Note 1: RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; EST = estimates of the RMSEA; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; CFI = comparative fit idex; SRMR = root mean square residual; AIC = Akaike criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion.

Note 2: a Nested Model Comparison, Scaled Chi Square Difference Test (method Satorra Bentler 2001). * p <.05, ***p <.001.