Research on strengths-based positive interventions (SBPIs) has often supported their effectiveness, but these studies overwhelmingly focus on experiential outcomes such as affect and subjective well-being. Much less is known about their effectiveness for eliciting positive behavioral outcomes. The current article provides a lexicon to clarify distinctions between various types of positive interventions. This is followed by a meta-analysis of studies examining behavioral outcomes from SBPIs. Multiple databases were searched through October 2020. Out of 418 studies evaluating what could be considered SBPIs, only 48 analyses across 29 articles examined group differences in a behavioral outcome. Random-effects meta-analysis of post-test data revealed a small to medium, statistically significant effect, Hedges’ g= 0.32. Evidence was insufficient to suggest small-study or methodological bias. SBPIs seemed effective for eliciting behavioral change relative to control conditions consistent with prior meta-analyses. However, the available data are too limited to support SBPIs as an alternative to traditional approaches that focus on direct symptom reduction.

Prior literature on the use of character strengths suggests that both deficiencies and excesses in the use of strengths can be problematic. While most school-based training in character strengths tends to focus on the former issue, an example is provided of a school-based program offered by the Mayerson Academy in partnership with the VIA Institute on Character that does not focus on deficiency but rather celebrates enhancing one's own personal key strengths. This program, entitled Thriving Learning Communities, will be implemented in 42 Cincinnati public schools this year. It aims to motivate students, as well as educators, to perform at their highest levels through encouraging increased use of character strengths. We provide an overview of the program and discuss how it may be modified by the teacher to offer a more nuanced perspective on character strengths within a gifted student population. Specifically, within a gifted classroom setting, we discuss ways in which educators can encourage gifted students to understand the importance of balancing their strengths and effectively matching their use of strengths to the situation. In addition to focusing on the use of signature or top strengths, we suggest a program that would aid gifted students in deciphering when it is most and least appropriate to use top strengths, through a dial-up/dial-down framework for targeted strength use.