A Qualitative Examination of Character Strengths and Virtues in Intergroup Reconciliation

McGrath (2018) suggested that the definition of Character Education (CE) can be elaborated by means of prototype analysis with recognised experts in the CE field. He hypothesised that a CE programme could be conceptualised by seven central features: being school-based, structured, and addressing five areas of development (positive psychological attributes, identity, moral growth, holistic growth, and practical wisdom). According to the logic of protype analysis, none of these features is essential to CE but, ‘the more of these features that are present, the more likely it is that the program will be considered character education’ (McGrath et al., 2022, p.220). The completed prototype analysis suggested thirty features that experts in Character Education considered to be typical, and fifteen which could be viewed as central to CE (McGrath et al., 2022).

Of particular relevance to the present study are two observations extracted from the findings of the protype analysis. Firstly, that in ratings of centrality to CE, the term ‘character strengths’ was ranked second among the thirty items. An outcome which McGrath et al. (2022) attribute to the potentially significant effect the VIA Classification of Character Strengths and Virtues (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) has had on the perception of CE. Secondly, the network analysis of responses led to recognition of some conceptual overlap between CE and Social-Emotional Learning (SEL). In both the network plot and the principal components analysis, flourishing was the concept that appeared to connect the two concepts of education, a confirmation that both CE and SEL are in some way concerned with flourishing, as connected with virtue in the case of CE (Kristjánsson, 2012), or as an individual and communal outcome of SEL (Schonert-Reichl, 2019).

If then CE is conceptualised to some extent as the development of character strengths for the promotion of individual and societal flourishing, then the literature on character strengths interventions constitutes an evidence base of hundreds of educational practices (see, Niemiec, 2017). These practices are frequently reported in the terminology of controlled-trials more akin to medical disciplines such as clinical psychology, and less often couched in the language of education or pedagogy. Nevertheless, all character strengths interventions are educational in the sense that – whether in clinic, classroom, or community – they aspire to teach skills and practices viewed as morally valuable for their own sake and which contribute to individual and institutional flourishing – both key criteria for the inclusion of a strength in the VIA classification (Park et al., 2004).

There is an ever-expanding evidence base on the development of individual character strengths and their consequences which includes psychoeducational interventions for inter alia humility (Lavelock et al., 2014), forgiveness (Worthington, 2003), humour (Wellenzohn et al., 2016), gratitude (Emmons, 2013), hope (Lopez, 2013), curiosity (Kashdan, 2009), love (Zhou, et al., 2019) and kindness (Pressman et al., 2015). In addition, there are multiple strengths interventions, such as that proposed by Proyer et al. (2015), which delivered a training programme targeting the development of curiosity, gratitude, hope, humour and zest, over a five-week period, with accompanying improvements in participant wellbeing scores (Proyer et al., 2012). Furthermore, considerable attention has been paid in the VIA CS literature to the daily use of signature strengths, the handful of CS that individuals find easy to access, energising to use and essential to their identity (Niemiec, 2017). A meta-analysis of Signature Strengths interventions (i.e. those which instruct participants to use a signature strength differently each day), found that of 14 studies, 9 reported increases in positive emotion as a result of signature strength use and 7 reported decreases in anxiety and depression (Schutte & Malouf, 2019). This small sample from the relevant literature suggests not only that character strengths can be taught, but that this teaching leads to human flourishing.

These character-related improvements in flourishing and associated positive emotion however are not confined to individuals, they ripple through social networks. The meta-analysis performed by Lyubomirsky et al. (2005) reported numerous effects of positive emotion in workplace settings including higher social involvement and volunteering, greater collaboration, improved decision making. Fredrickson (2013) sums up her research on positive emotions and love by explicitly stating that love over time ‘…spreads through whole communities’ (Fredrickson, 2013, p6). In similar manner, the recent proposal of ‘Third Wave Positive Psychology’, explicitly emphasises the groups and systems in which people are embedded (Lomas et al., 2021).

This social ripple effect is why VIA Character Strengths can make a significant contribution to Character Education for Peace and Reconciliation. Individual strengths have been identified as explicitly linked to reconciliation. Forgiveness interventions, for example, have been adapted to educational contexts, as part of youth development (Klatt & Enright, 2009), for undergraduate students (Harper et al., 2014) and in character education (Enright et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2011); and have been adapted to several conflicted populations including, the criminal justice system (Day et al., 2008), and children in Northern Ireland (Enright et al., 2003; Enright et al., 2007). This interweaving of forgiveness with reconciliation has been brought together in the Forgiveness Reconciliation Model (Balkin et al., 2016). In similar fashion, the character strength referred to as Judgement has been conceptualised as Integrative Complexity (IC, Suedfeld & Tetlock, 1977) – the ability to apply different perspectives and find links between them – and applied to the reduction of religiously motivated violence (Savage, 2011) and the resolution of divisions within religious communities (Savage, 2008). Forgiveness and Judgement are just two examples of individual Character Strengths taking central place in the process of reconciliation in inter-group conflicts.

In recent years however there has been a growing rapprochement between research on the VIA Classification and the substantial science of peace studies, particularly regarding intergroup reconciliation. Niemiec (2022), reports data from over twenty-five thousand respondents indicating that three levels of peace (inner peace, relational peace, and management of political/religious conflict) require a complex combination of CS. Data from the same sample also indicated a mismatch between the CS assumed to contribute to inner peace and those which statistically predicted it. Their findings proposed hope, zest, and gratitude as the CS contributing to inner peace, with spirituality and forgiveness acting as secondary facets (Chérif et al., 2022). Furthermore, Shoshani (2021) reported the results of a PERMA-based programme, with an emphasis on character strengths, conducted with 2,228 adolescents in four schools in southern Israel. Participants showed a significant increase in motivation for conflict resolution, compassion toward the Palestinians and hopes for peace, whereas the control group participants showed a significant decrease in beliefs about conflict resolution and hopes for peace. The escalation of conflict in Israel-Gaza during the review of this manuscript in October 2023, only serves to add further poignance and urgency to the reporting of this study. Educational interventions based one the VIA Classification of Character Strengths and Virtues should be considered a sound and fitting foundation for the teaching of peace and inter-group reconciliation.

We do however recognise that reconciliation is hard to define (Bloomfield, 2006). The three reconciliation centres reported in this study represent differing philosophies and approaches to the definition of reconciliation. The Rose Castle Foundation (https://www.rosecastlefoundation.org) and Reconcilers Together (https://www.reconcilerstogether.com), are faith-based networks with a Christian ethos, for them the task of reconciliation is theological, a reflection of the requirement to restore the image of God to a fractured humanity. Consequently, the Rose Castle Foundation (2018) promote the twelve habits of a reconciler which are used to lead reconciliation practice (Knox, 2018): hospitality, curiosity, generosity, empathy, vulnerability, humility, lament, forgiveness, gratitude, hope, stewardship, and creativity.

The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation in Manitoba, Canada (https://nctr.ca), however is embedded in the longstanding call made for reconciliation issued by indigenous peoples in North America. For them reconciliation denotes the ongoing process of establishing and maintaining respectful relationships, finding a way for victims and perpetrators to advance from a past draped in pain and mistreatment into a future of collaboration and relative harmony (Tarusaria & Manyena, 2016). These aspirations draw upon the seven ‘grandfathers’ or ‘gifts’: wisdom, love, respect, bravery, humility, honesty, and truth. Sacred laws viewed as an avenue for understanding the characteristics needed to foster positive change (Absolon & Absolon-Winchester, 2016; Borrows, 2008; Cole, 2019).

Reconciliation is a process that can be used to foster interpersonal good in the world, but it means different things to different people, and some argue that this limits its effectiveness in bringing about actual change (Rettberg & Ugarriza, 2016). However, both the habits of a reconciler and the seven grandfathers are couched in a language of virtue not dissimilar to that used by the VIA Classification, and this semantic overlap provides a foundation for exploring how the terminology of CS might expand and shed light on the work of reconciliation, even when understood from quite different ideological stances.

While approaches to reconciliation differ significantly, we would expect people working for reconciliation in any context to be able to identify specific CS involved in their work. This study therefore adopts a qualitative method of analysis appropriate for an open and deep exploration (Moen & Middelthon, 2015) of where and how reconcilers recognised CS in the process of reconciliation. Opening the scope of inquiry to include the entire VIA Classification, allowed reconcilers to consider qualities less frequently spoken of in the context of reconciliation and thereby permitted a broader view of how they might be involved in reconciliation. In this sense we expected our interviews with reconcilers of any orientation to be congruent with the view that the VIA Classification provides, ‘a common language for students, teachers, and the rest of us to understand and call forth what is best in ourselves and others’ (Linkins et al., 2015, p. 64).

Seven participants were recruited for the study. The cohort consisted of three males and four females aged between 24 and 45 (M = 29. 4, SD = 6.96). Participants were required to be over the age of 18 and have knowledge and experience of reconciliation workshops. This was to ensure that participants had intimate knowledge of the topic of reconciliation and could offer lived, detailed experience that could be analysed. Participants were recruited by contacting reconciliation centres across the globe. The centres that collaborated were Rose Castle Foundation; the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation in Canada; and Reconcilers Together. These centres were spread internationally, with participant locations including the United Kingdom, Canada, Egypt, and Belgium.

Individual interviews were conducted with each participant. Interviews lasted around 45 to 60 minutes and were carried out online via both Zoom and Microsoft Teams. Participants provided informed consent prior to the interview and were asked to provide demographic data which consisted of self-report questions on their age, gender, and ethnicity. A semi-structured interview format was employed in which participants were interviewed individually online. They were asked a standardised set of questions concerning the meaning of reconciliation to them and their perceptions of the use of strengths in reconciliation work (See Table 1).

Participants were provided with a reference sheet which included a summary of the VIA Classification of Character Strengths, and a comparison of how the strengths may be exhibited if over- or under-used. Participants were invited to consult the sheet to inform their answers. The semi-structured interview format provided an outline for discussion, but interviews were allowed to evolve with the participant. Interviews were recorded, transcribed by a professional transcription service, and checked for accuracy.

A coding analysis was performed on the completed transcripts following guidance from Creswell (2009), and Braun and Clarke (2006). A mixed method approach of inductive and deductive coding was used to analyse the data. Themes were created “a priori” using inductive coding and were based on the 24 strengths from the VIA institute. This method was used to structure the code creation around the strengths and give applicable theoretical relevance to the results. The codes were then developed inductively by codebook construction based on systematic analysis of the transcripts. Using a similar method to Selvam (2015), primary coding adopted two criteria in marking words, phrases, and sentences of importance: a) phrasal resemblance to the vocabulary or synonym counterpart of the VIA Classification; and b) semantic resemblance for phrases closely expressing the concepts of different strengths.

The preliminary coded interview transcripts were imported into NVivo software. The qualitative codebook was then developed by re-examination of the primary coding analysis and the generation of further superordinate themes by grouping previous codes into congruent concepts. A coding matrix was then created to identify any significant overlaps in coding and distinguish the recurrent themes garnered from the codes. The completed coded data was then placed into the themes using the character strengths as a template. Subsections within these overarching themes were represented as separate codes.

Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Lincoln School of Psychology Research Ethics Committee (UOL2022_7931). The study adhered to agreed principles of informed consent, right to withdraw, participant confidentiality and commitment to participant wellbeing. Participants were provided with study information and signed a consent form prior to participation. They were reminded of the right to withdraw from the interview and to withdraw any data provided until the point of analysis, two weeks post-interview. Personal data such as email addresses, used only for organisational purposes, were deleted once the interview had been conducted. All interview data was stored confidentially on an password-protected encrypted server with participants identifiable by an anonymous code known only to the lead researcher. All recordings and transcripts were destroyed after analysis was completed.

Analysis of the data produced 14 themes, most of which were pertaining to the questions posed from the interview form. The themes were then sectioned into 32 different sub-themes or codes (See Table 2).

What follows is a summary of the major themes identified in descending order of frequency of occurrence in the transcripts. This ordering does not imply a ranking of the significance of these strengths in the process of reconciliation, but rather those strengths the interviewees selected as most familiar and applicable to their reconciliation work.

• 4.1Love (Theme 1) was mentioned most frequently out of all the themes. This suggests a consensus on the importance of love in the process of reconciliation. This is in line with previous research that has discussed the necessity of love in reconciliation (Green, Capitaine & Vanthuyne, 2017; Macar, 2019; Rose, 2002). As a theme, it encompassed how people expressed love for themselves and other people. Participants referenced the conscious use of love in conversations with people to influence their opinions, incorporating Social Intelligence as the ‘strategic conscious arm of love’. (Interview 3, 18.11). Additionally, ‘too much’ love recurred in the interviews as a potential barrier to reconciliation. Compassion fatigue was highlighted as being a possible block for an uninterrupted reconciliation discussion. In a space with opposing views, overt and excessive expressions of love were at times deemed to be uncomfortable to receive and thus damaging open communication.

• 4.2Judgement (Theme 2) was also reported as integral to reconciliation. It was the second most frequent strength mentioned with reference to the ability to think through each side before jumping to a conclusion. It was used to explain how an acknowledgement and awareness of alternate viewpoints can help create a positive space for conversation.

• 4.3Honesty (Theme 3). Numerous participants mentioned the importance of bringing truth to the process of reconciliation. This concept of honesty has also been noted previously as a powerful condition of reconciliation (Assefa, 2001; Ramsey, 1988). With regards to honesty Assefa (2001, p.181) notes that ‘If the process manages to get the parties to that point, there is a powerful meeting place there, which can unleash tremendous possibilities for honesty and reconciliation’. As a strength it refers to the ability to bring authenticity into social situations, which in turn opens the space up for vulnerable expression.

• 4.4Teamwork (Theme 4). Participants reported that collaboration of some kind was an intrinsic part of the reconciliation process. To advance the relationship beyond a place of conflict, individuals must possess a sense of social responsibility and commitment. We coded two sub-themes of this occurrence. Positive Collaboration (Code 10) in which participants noted that reconciliation proceeded well when there had been constructive cooperation within intergroup reconciliation and across the conflict in independent reconciliation. For example: ‘It’s more about coming together person-to-person and coming to a place where you can be in the same space and have a constructive conversation.’ (Interview 4, 1.18). Furthermore, Cohesive group thought (Code 11) noted the importance of individuals representing the principles of their community correctly when they engage in reconciliation on behalf of a group. ‘Not always thinking about themselves, they are thinking about the community.’ (Interview 6, 39.17). However, the participants also sounded a note of caution concerning group cohesion that can deter positive reconciliation, when defined by hate. For example: ‘Losing your individual identity and relying on a group identity that hates another certain group will mean that you can’t see past that hate. The group think means you can’t form an opinion of your own.’ (Interview 3, 39.43).

• 4.5Spirituality (Theme 5). Generally, referral to spirituality within the transcripts spoke of the experience of greater meaning when proceeding with reconciliation. It was noted that spirituality is often disregarded within the reconciliation field as many people are concerned by its capacity to be divisive. The ‘industry lacks a well thought through way of approaching reconciliation that incorporates spirituality in any way…Spirituality is so much more than just the main religions; it can really provide a way to connect that goes beyond nationalities and communities.’ (Interview 5, 23.07). Even though explicit references to spirituality may be lacking from reconciliation interventions, there is a significant amount of study linking the two concepts (Bash, 2014; Calma, 2010; Kelly et al., 2015). This potentially indicates a disconnect between the theory of reconciliation mediation and its implementation in practice.

• 4.6Perspective (Theme 6) in reconciliation was viewed as the ability to assess the process in a manner that allows for consideration of the world beyond the reconciling group, allowing individuals to benefit from finding insight whilst the reconciliation activity is ongoing. Research into the intersection of perspective and reconciliation is minimal, but participants in this study register perspective as a key element in reconciliation.

• 4.7Forgiveness (Theme 7) encompasses the ability to respect the shortcomings of others and let go of past hurt. Although often used in reference to reconciliation (Auerbach, 2004; Hamber, 2007; Worthington, 2003), this research has shown it to be an integral part of the process of reconciliation but not expansive enough to aid every step of progression. As the seventh theme, the frequency of remarks referring to forgiveness is less than the previously stated themes. This decrease in frequency could be attributable to the capacity for reconciliation to continue without forgiveness (Freedman, 1998). As one participant stated: ‘It’s well within someone’s right not to forgive their perpetrator forgive someone who has hurt them.’ (Interview 2, 7.13). Nevertheless, removing forgiveness would hinder the process and its inclusion brings numerous benefits.

• 4.8 Hope (Theme 8), and codes associated with hope, were diverse, and participant semantics surrounding hope indicated it to have congruent links with alternate strengths. Overall, participants who addressed the theme of hope, were concerned with a general positive future-minded outlook.

• 4.9Self-Regulation (Theme 9). Reconciliation can be a delicate process (Auerbach, 2004) and emotional outbursts are common when discussing vulnerable areas of life. Self-regulation is therefore spoken of as an important strength to apply in reconciliation, in keeping these more erratic states of being to a minimum. The sub-theme of Negative projection (Code 20) speaks to the adversarial behaviours that can develop from attempting to proceed with reconciliation from a poor state of self-regulation. For example: ‘Some come into organisations and preach that settlers are ‘racist’ and should have a lot of shame and guilt. By putting these negative emotions onto people, it makes them a lot less likely to be open to change.’ (Interview 1, 35.33). Circumspection (Code 21), on the other hand, codes any acknowledgement that caution should be employed when entering reconciliation. Remaining calm and collected will allow individuals to express their emotions more comprehensively, and ‘transcend from anger.’ (Interview 6, 19.07). In the words of one interviewee, ‘Sometimes people say unseemly things and so to be able to control yourself and your anger in those moments is hugely beneficial.’ (Interview 7, 17.09).

• 4.10Kindness (Theme 10) and its employment in reconciliation has received limited attention in previous research, but participants in this study mentioned how kindness can be utilised to create an initial welcoming environment. The VIA Classification differentiates Kindness and Love as separable but related Character Strengths. The brief definition of Love provided in the reference sheet provided to interviewees, defined Love as ‘both loving and being loved, valuing close relationships with others, genuine warmth’; whereas the definition of Kindness is more behaviourally inflected as ‘generosity, nurturance, care, compassion, altruism, doing for others’ (VIA Institute on Character, 2018). While most interviewees selected love as the character strength most applicable to their work in reconciliation, kindness was viewed as providing a context in which valuable relationships could be formed.

• 4.11Curiosity (Theme 11) was viewed as facilitating reconciliation, allowing openness and enthusiasm in learning about a new perspective. Both ‘openness to experience’ and ‘encouragement of empathy’ were viewed as grounded in a curious mind. Fascination with alternate points of view can help to make another side seem less intimidating. It allows people to ‘get into finding out answers and gaining information about people and therefore becomes a self-sustaining interest.’ (Interview 5, 17.26).

• 4.12Leadership (Theme 12) in the context of reconciliation was viewed as being a mouthpiece and facilitator to the process of reconciliation. As one participant put it, ‘Leadership can inspire people to start to be team players.’ (Interview 5, 12.16). While leadership has been previously identified as potentially useful in reconciling (Calderón-Valencia & Escobar-Sierra, 2019; Cross et al., 2019), our participants indicated that leadership can be of direct importance in the process of reconciliation.

• 4.13Bravery (Theme 13) was referenced as outward action in standing up against intimidating bodies such as governments under the code of ‘protection of others’. However, emotional bravery was also referenced as the ability to open up and be vulnerable with a previous antagonistic relationship under a second code. These findings align with the recent stress on bravery within reconciliation research (Orgega, 2022; Schockman et al., 2019).

• 4.14 Humour (Theme 14) was the least mentioned theme across the interviews, but participants who did mention it, spoke of its ability to buffer the deeper and darker emotions associated with reconciliation. Interviewees noted how humour provided a pivotal role in developing relationships. This corresponds to previous literature reporting the positive role of humour in reconciliation (e.g. Wood et al., 2018).

The aims and findings of this research are ultimately fairly modest. The semi-structured interview format provided participants with a lexicon of terms from which to draw descriptions of their reconciling activity, but also by the same token may have confined them to the VIA Classification as a reference point for conversation. It is difficult to tell whether using the VIA Classification broadened the range of qualities referenced in the interviews or whether the resulting themes may have been more wide-ranging if the interviews had deviated further from the VIA Classification. It could be argued that this restriction removes one of the primary advantages of qualitative methodology, namely the scope for broad exploration of a given theme (Mack et al., 2005; Moen & Middelthon, 2015).

Even with these restrictions, the findings reported here offer a promising insight into the role of character strengths in the work of reconciliation. The VIA Classification of Character Strengths does seem to provide a good common language which can aid in de-mystifying the complex field of reconciliation. If nothing else these interviews proffer a rationale a wide-ranging appreciation of various character strengths when educating for peace and reconciliation.