What parents want their children to become: Character strengths as a framework for understanding parental socialization goals
Résumé fourni par la source
Objective: Which personality traits do people consider worth fostering? Parents’ aspirations for their children provide a developmental perspective on this question. We examined whether the Values in Action (VIA) classification of character strengths captures these aspirations.Method: In an online survey, German- and English-speaking parents and expecting parents (N = 1,410; Mage = 31.2 years; 94.3% women) either described the qualities they hoped their children would develop or rated the desirability of the 24 VIA character strengths and ten comparison traits (e.g., intelligence) for their children. Participants also rated their own character strengths.Results: All 24 character strengths were regarded as desirable, although to varying degrees. Across ratings and open-ended responses, parents consistently prioritized love, honesty, kindness, and social intelligence. Character strengths were generally valued more highly than comparison traits, particularly academic achievement and attractiveness. Parents also placed greater value on strengths they themselves scored higher on. Desirability was also associated with perceived contribution to well-being and, depending on the method, normative levels and societal valuation.Conclusions: Character strengths capture many of the personality traits parents most want their children to develop, highlighting parental socialization goals as a valuable perspective on desirable personality.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- What parents want their children to become: Character strengths as a framework for understanding parental socialization goals
- Date Crossref
- 24/08/2026
- Éditeur
- Center for Open Science
- Type
- posted-content
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.