Home > HCAS > HCAS_PUBS > HCAS_JOURNALS > TQR Home > TQR > Vol. 20 > No. 4 (2015)
Positive Psychology’s Character Strengths in Addiction-Spirituality Research: A Qualitative Systematic Literature Review
There is an increasing interest in the scientific study of the association between spirituality and recovery from addiction. While most of these studies have provided evidence for a possible relationship, others have explored the underlying mechanisms and meditators in the relationship. However, generally, many studies and reviews have not approached the issue within a specific theoretical framework of mainstream psychology. In an attempt to fill this gap, the review being reported here undertook a Qualitative Systematic Literature Review (QSLR) of addiction-spirituality literature. QSLR is an orderly manner of searching for academic literature, selecting relevant literature following a set of inclusion/exclusion criteria, qualitatively analysing the selected literature, and reporting the findings in such a way as to generate a set of hypotheses. QSLR focusses on literary data, rather than on numerical data as the tradition Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis do. Working within the framework of positive psychology, the present review attempted to identify the character strengths relevant to addiction and recovery by carrying out a QSLR on 53 selected peer-reviewed articles. Among the 24 character strengths, the following emerged as salient: wisdom, integrity, vitality, humility, forgiveness, kindness, love, hope and spirituality. On this basis, a hypothetical conclusion is suggested.
Qualitative Systematic Literature Review, Character Strengths, Positive Psychology, Addictive Behaviours, Spirituality, Addiction, Spirituality
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.
Recommended APA Citation
Selvam, S. G. (2015). Positive Psychology’s Character Strengths in Addiction-Spirituality Research: A Qualitative Systematic Literature Review. The Qualitative Report, 20(4), 376-405. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2116
Quantitative, Qualitative, Comparative, and Historical Methodologies Commons, Social Statistics Commons