Effect of strengths use on thriving and its intervention among high school students

Effect of strengths use on thriving and its intervention among high school students | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Effect of strengths use on thriving and its intervention among high school students Xinming Zhang, Qiuni He, Zhen Liu, Ying Li This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9099374/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Based on the Resources Conservation Theory and Self-Determination Theory, this study explored how strengths use influences thriving among high school students through a diary study and an intervention study. Study 1 adopted a 5-day diary survey ( N = 146, M age = 17.15, SD age = 0.72; 54.79% males) and indicated that daily strengths use positively predicted daily thriving, with self-efficacy mediating this relationship at the within-person level. Study 2 used a randomized controlled design to test a one-week strengths-based cognitive-behavioral intervention. The results showed that compared with the control group ( N = 43, M age = 16.93, SD age = 0.51; 53.49% males), the intervention group ( N = 43, M age = 16.81, SD age = 0.59; 51.16% males) exhibited a significant increase in strengths use, self-efficacy and thriving, and the intervention effects demonstrated favorable immediacy and sustainability. This study verified the mediating mechanism of self-efficacy between strengths use and thriving, and identified the important value of strengths-based cognitive-behavioral intervention for students’ growth and development. Strengths use Self-efficacy Thriving Strengths-based cognitive behavioral intervention Diary method Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 1. Introduction 1.1 Academic Stress and Thriving Among High School Students With the development of society and the refinement of the educational evaluation system, modern education has increasingly raised requirements for students’ comprehensive literacy. In China, the competitive pressure of the College Entrance Examination (Gaokao) has exposed high school students to widespread academic stress (Luo et al., 2020 ). Previous studies have shown that prolonged and excessive academic stress can trigger various mental health issues, such as depression, emotional fluctuations, and academic burnout (Arsenio & Loria, 2014 ; Veyis et al., 2019 ; Yuan, 2022 ). Furthermore, according to Erikson’ s psychosocial development theory (Erikson, 1959 ), high school students are in the stage of conflict between self-identity and role confusion. This stage is a critical window for their psychological development, but it is also a high-incidence period for psychological problems. Therefore, focusing on the mental health of high school students holds important practical significance. In this context, the mere prevention of psychological problems is far from sufficient. Instead, it is more imperative to examine whether adolescents can maintain optimal functioning and achieve positive development under stressful conditions-that is, whether they can attain a state of thriving. Thriving not only reflects whether adolescents are “free from problems” but also embodies their ability to achieve growth amid academic challenges and developmental tasks, serving as an important indicator for assessing adolescents’ mental health and positive development levels (Su et al., 2014 ; Brown et al., 2017 ). 1.2 From the Perspective of Positive Psychology: Strengths and Strengths Use The rise of positive psychology has provided new theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for promoting adolescents’ mental health. In recent years, researchers have proposed that school mental health education should shift from a problem-solving orientation to one focused on cultivating positive psychological qualities. By integrating the core philosophy of positive psychology into educational systems and teaching practices, educators can effectively foster the development of students’ positive psychological traits (Lin et al., 2023 ). Within this framework, strengths—as one of the core components of positive psychology—have attracted extensive attention owing to their focus on individuals’ potential, talents, as well as their promotive effects on individuals’ positive subjective experiences and organizational development (Miglianico et al., 2020 ; Wagner et al., 2020 ). It is noteworthy that strengths alone do not automatically translate into positive outcomes. Their effectiveness depends not only on factors such as environment, values, and interests, but also on individuals’ behavioral patterns—namely, Strengths use (Biswas-Diener et al., 2011 ). Strengths use refers to the behavior of individuals proactively utilizing their own strengths (van Woerkom & Mostert, 2016). It influences the extent to which individuals achieve optimal functioning across diverse contexts, including daily life, education, organizations, and clinical settings (Allan & Duffy, 2014 ; Botha & Mostert, 2014 ; Pap et al., 2022 ; Taylor et al., 2023 ). A large body of researches has demonstrated that strengths use plays a pivotal role in enriching psychological resources and enhancing positive subjective experiences such as well-being and life satisfaction across different life stages (Proctor et al., 2011 ; Douglass & Duffy, 2015 ; Matsuo, 2020 ). This suggests that strengths Use constitutes an overarching trend in individual development and is closely associated with positive states and behaviors (Harzer & Ruch, 2013 ). For instance, Dubreuil (2014) found that strengths use can improve individuals’ harmonious passion, subjective vitality, and concentration, thereby facilitating their performance. 1.3 Thriving and Its Relationship with Strengths Use Thriving is typically defined as a process and state in which individuals develop their psychological or social functioning in adversity, or achieve and even exceed their goals in opportunities (Feeney & Collins, 2015 ). In empirical researches, thriving is often conceptualized as an integrated experience of high well-being and optimal functioning, serving as a joint manifestation of individual development and success. It can be assessed by levels of high well-being and perceived high performance (Brown et al., 2017 ). Previous studies on thriving have mainly focused on the organizational context with corporate employees as the target group (Spreitzer & Porath, 2014 ), concentrating on the positive benefits it brings to organizations, such as reducing job burnout (Hildenbrand et al., 2018 ). Meanwhile, existing research has also found that thriving can facilitate individuals’ positive development in psychological, physical, and social domains (Su et al., 2014 ; Porath et al., 2012 ). For high school students, thriving may enable them to better mobilize internal and external resources in high-pressure environments to cope with multiple developmental tasks, and achieve positive growth. From a theoretical perspective, thriving is a prototypical positive psychological state (Porath et al., 2012 ; Su et al., 2014 ), which is influenced by a variety of personal resources such as positive cognitions and psychological resilience (Brown et al., 2017 ). Bakker ( 2018 ) argued that strengths use can be regarded as a specific form of personal resource to enhance individuals’ positive psychological states. Study by Rothmann and Mahomed ( 2019 ) found that strengths use was significantly and positively correlated with thriving in the workplace context. For instance, strengths use can predict employees’ well-being (Bakker & van Woerkom, 2018 ), and well-being in turn can further enhance thriving (Robertson et al., 2011 ). In terms of functional characteristics, the positive effects generated by strengths use are highly consistent with the core connotation of thriving. However, the specific relationship and mechanism of action between the two remain insufficiently systematically examined in the adolescent population. 1.4 The Mediating Effect of Self-Efficacy in the Relationship Between Strengths Use and Thriving Self-efficacy refers to an individual's subjective conviction in their ability to successfully execute the behaviors required to achieve specific goals. It focuses not on the behavior itself, but on the level of confidence an individual has in utilizing their own capabilities to accomplish a task or perform an action. Bandura ( 1982 ) argued that successful experiences are one of important sources of self-efficacy formation. Essentially, strengths use is a process in which individuals tap into their potential talents and accumulate successful experiences through practice, and thus it may theoretically have a positive relationship with self-efficacy. A longitudinal study targeting engineers found that the more individuals used their strengths in daily work, the more likely they were to achieve personal goals, thereby stimulating higher self-efficacy. As a positive personal resource (Marcionetti & Rossier, 2021 ), self-efficacy helps individuals successfully complete tasks by regulating related resources such as motivation and behavior (Schwarzer et al., 1997 ), and it enhances their physical and mental health as well as positive behavioral performance (Bandura, 1997 ; Maddux, 2016 ). An individual's level of self-efficacy determines their level of motivation, which in turn is closely related to the degree of effort invested and persistence maintained in challenging situations (Bandura, 1988 ). From the perspective of positive functioning, thriving, as an important indicator for assessing mental health (Su et al., 2014 ), is influenced by individual motivation (Spreitzer & Porath, 2014 ; Han et al., 2024 ). Research has found that employees’ self-efficacy can enhance their thriving at work (Paterson et al., 2014 ). Self-Determination Theory (Self-Determination Theory; Deci & Ryan, 2000 ) emphasizes the satisfaction of individuals’ basic psychological needs (including autonomy, competence, and relatedness) is a critical condition for promoting mental health and positive functioning. Strengths use enables individuals to engage in activities they excel at, thereby satisfying their basic psychological needs (Botha & Mostert, 2014 ; Moore et al., 2022 ). Conservation of Resources Theory (Hobfoll, 1989 ) highlights that individuals with more resources will strive to acquire and accumulate additional resources through their behaviors, and abundant personal resources will further foster positive psychological outcomes (Spreitzer et al., 2005 ;Mansour & Tremblay, 2018 ). Based on this, it can be inferred that strengths use, on one hand, satisfies basic psychological needs and on the other, it promotes the accumulation of successful experiences, helping individuals gain positive psychological resources such as self-efficacy (Bakker & van Woerkom, 2018 ; Botha & Mostert, 2014 ), thereby enhancing their thriving (Dubreuil et al., 2014 ; Liao, Yan, 2014 ). In other words, self-efficacy likely plays a mediating role between strengths use and thriving. 1.5 Limitations of Previous Studies Although existing studies have provided direct or indirect evidence for the positive relationship between strengths use and thriving, several limitations still remain. First, regarding research contexts and subjects, most relevant studies have been conducted in work environments (Kleine et al., 2019 ; Miglianico et al., 2020 ) with research subjects predominantly being adults—especially corporate employees. The conceptual constructs and measurement tools are also more applicable to the organizational field, to a certain extent neglecting the role of strengths use and thriving in adolescents’ personal growth and school life (Wood et al., 2011 ; Duan et al., 2019 ). For high school students facing the combined pressures of the college entrance exam and developmental tasks, it is necessary to systematically examine the relationships between strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving within developmental and positive psychology frameworks. Second, in terms of research methods, strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving are all characterized by dynamic changes in response to external environments (van Woerkom, Oerlemans & Bakker, 2016; Zhang et al., 2022 ; Brown et al., 2017 ). Traditional cross-sectional studies or longitudinal designs with long intervals struggle to capture the fluctuations of these variables in daily life, and particularly failed to distinguish between intra-individual (changes in the same person over time) and inter-individual (differences between different people) mechanisms. Adopting a diary method combined with a multilevel mediation model allows for observing variable fluctuations in natural contexts over consecutive days, distinguishing intra-individual and inter-individual effects, and thus more precisely reveal the dynamic relationships among strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving. Third, regarding intervention research, previous strength-based intervention studies have primarily focused on outcomes such as employees’ well-being, depression and stress (Gander et al., 2024 ; Niemiec, 2014 ; Ruch et al., 2020 ), they rarely treat thriving as a core outcome variable and systematically examine the pathways of mediating variables like self-efficacy, and most studies have not systematically tested or reported the sustainability of intervention effects (Duan et al., 2019 ). In the context of high school seniors facing intense academic pressure and adaptation challenges, it is necessary to develop and evaluate a strength-based cognitive-behavioral intervention program suitable for this group. This would explore how to enhance their strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving by activating personal resources and test the immediacy and sustainability of the intervention effects. 1.6 Purposes and Design of This Study In summary, this study takes high school students as research subjects, and under the integrated framework of Self-Determination Theory and Conservation of Resources Theory, it focuses on this group's strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving, aiming to address the following key research questions: (1) Can high school students’ strengths use in daily life predict their thriving? (2) Does self-efficacy mediate the relationship between strengths use and thriving, particularly at the intra-individual level? (3) Can the strength-based cognitive-behavioral intervention enhance high school students’ strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving, and produce sustained effects? To this end, the study designs interconnected sub-studies.. Study 1 adopts a five-day diary method to continuously observe high school students’ strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving in daily life. It uses multilevel mediation models to test the predictive effect of strengths use on thriving, as well as the role of self-efficacy in this relationship, at both the intra-individual and inter-individual levels. Study 2 integrates the core elements of cognitive-behavioral therapy on the basis of existing strength-based cognitive intervention techniques to develop a strength-based cognitive-behavioral intervention suitable for high school students. Using a randomized controlled trial design, it examines the immediate and sustained effects of the intervention on enhancing high school students’ strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving. Thus, this study provides more stronger causal evidence for the mechanism underlying how strengths use promotes thriving among high school students, and also offers an operational intervention pathway for school mental health education practices. 2. Study1 2.1 Participants All participants were recruited from one senior high school in a northern Chinese city through a cluster sampling procedure. A total of 169 students were recruited and participated in this study, among whom those who failed to complete all the diary surveys were excluded. Therefore, a total of 146 (86.39%) students who completed all five daily questionnaires were included in the final analyses ( M age = 17.15, SD age = 0.72; 54.79% males). 2.2 Procedure After all study protocols were approved by the ethics committee of XXX University, the research team contacted the school administrators for permission to recruit. Only students who provided assent and informed consent from their parents participated in this project. This study adopted an offline questionnaire administration method. During data collection, students first completed a survey on demographic information. Participants were then fully briefed on the general content, overall procedure, and precautions of the study, with an emphasis that all data would be used solely for academic research purposes and kept strictly confidential. Next, they completed the daily surveys independently for five consecutive days. Specifically, paper-and-pencil questionnaires were distributed to participants at 9:30 p.m. daily. Participants were asked to respond to questions regarding their daily strengths use, daily self-efficacy, and daily thriving based on their actual experiences and true feelings of the day. Upon completion of the entire diary study, all participants were provided with gifts as a token of appreciation. 2.3 Measures 2.3.1 Daily strength use Daily strength use was assessed using the Chinese version of the Strengths Use Scale revised by Duan et al. (2018), which was originally developed by Govindji and Linley ( 2007 ). To adapt the scale for daily diary administration and improve response rates, four representative items with high factor loadings were selected and reworded for for daily assessment, such as "Today, I was able to use my own strengths". Participants responded on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ("strongly disagree") to 7 ("strongly agree"). In Study 1, the Cronbach’s α for this scale across the five days ranged from 0.91 to 0.96. The within-level Cronbach’s α was 0.79 and the between-level Cronbach’s α was 0.99. These values indicate good internal consistency at both the within- and between-person levels. 2.3.2 Daily self-efficacy Daily self-efficacy was assessed using the adapted Chinese version of the General Self-Efficacy Scale (Wang et al., 2001 ), which was originally developed by Schwarzer et al. ( 1997 ). Similarly, four representative items were selected, such as "Today, I was confident in my ability to effectively cope with any unexpected events". Participants responded on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ("completely inconsistent") to 4 ("completely consistent"). In Study 1, the Cronbach’s α for this scale across the five days ranged from 0.80 to 0.86. The within-level Cronbach’s α was 0.67 and the between-level Cronbach’s α was 0.97, indicating good reliability . 2.3.3 Daily thriving Daily thriving was assessed using the Chinese version of the Brief Inventory of Thriving revised by Duan et al. ( 2016 ), which was originally developed by Su et al. ( 2014 ). Similarly, four representative items were selected, such as "Today, I felt optimistic about my future". Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ("strongly disagree") to 5 ("strongly agree"). In Study 1, the Cronbach’s α for this scale across the five days ranged from 0.81 to 0.88. The within-level Cronbach’s α was 0.70 and the between-level Cronbach’s α was 0.93, which indicates good reliability and validity for the measure at both levels. . 2.4 Data Analytic Strategy The data in this study consist of two nested levels: the first is within-person level data, referring to the repeated measures data obtained from each participant throughout the daily diary study; the second is between-person level data, reflecting individual differences across distinct participants. Specifically, within-person level (Level 1, N = 730) data are nested within between-person level (Level 2, N = 146) data (Hatano et al., 2022 ; Fang et al., 2010 ; Ye et al., 2023 ). Repeated measures data collected via the diary survey are suitable for analysis by constructing a 1-1-1 multilevel mediation model, which can avoid confounding of level-specific differences and accurately elucidate the underlying mechanisms among variables (Fang et al., 2010 ). The data processing procedure is outlined as follows: First, the descriptive statistics, correlational analyses and t-tests for the main variables were conducted using SPSS 26.0. Second, Mplus 8.3 was used to calculate the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for the main variables in the sample. The proportion of within-person variance is represented by 1-ICC. Third, multilevel regression analyses were performed using Mplus 8.3 to examine the direct effects among variables, thereby providing a basis for constructing the mediation model. Finally, a 1-1-1 model was constructed using Mplus 8.3 to conduct multilevel mediation analysis based on multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM). Models were estimated using the maximum likelihood method. Model fit was considered good when 2/ df ≤ 5, CFI and TLI ≥ 0.90, RMSEA and SRMR ≤ 0.08 (Kline, 2015 ). Bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples was employed to test the significance of the indirect effects. An indirect effect was considered statistically significant if its 95% confidence interval did not include zero, indicating the presence of a mediation effect. 2.5 Result 2.5.1 Preliminary Analyses Descriptive statistics and correlations are presented in Table 1 . All main study variables were positively associated with each other at the within- and between-person levels. The ICCs were 0.643, 0.556, and 0.620 for daily strength use, daily self-efficacy, and daily thriving, respectively. This indicates that 35.7% of the variance in daily strength use, 44.4% of the variance in daily self-efficacy, and 38.0% of the variance in daily thriving could be explained by within-person fluctuations. Moreover, independent samples t-tests were conducted to examine the gender differences in daily strength use, daily self-efficacy, and daily thriving, and no gender differences were found ( t = 0.36, 1.29, 0.17; ps > 0.1) Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations for study variables 1. Age ICC Mean SD w SD b 1 2 3 4 - 17.15 - 0.72 - - - - 2. DSU 0.643 4.224 1.535 1.301 0.084 - 0.600 ** 0.652 ** 3. DSE 0.556 2.598 0.655 0.527 0.044 0.746 ** - 0.536 ** 4. DT 0.620 3.614 1.042 0.872 0.073 0.795 ** 0.648 ** - The correlation coefficients of the within- and between-person levels were presented above and below the diagonal, respectively. DSU daily strength use, DSE daily self-efficacy, DT daily thriving. ** p < 0.01 2.5.2 MSEM Mediation Analysis Results examining the association between daily strength use and daily thriving and the mediating role of daily self-efficacy appear in Table 2 and Fig. 1 . Model fit indices showed it was an acceptable model (χ 2 = 212.144; df = 102; RMSEA = 0.038; CFI = 0.965; TLI = 0.954; SRMR within = 0.043, SRMR between = 0.035). Results at the within-person level indicated that there was a direct association between daily strength use and daily thriving ( β = 0.26, p < 0.001). Moreover, the direct association between daily strength use and daily self-efficacy and the direct association between daily self-efficacy and daily thriving were significant ( β = 0.37, p < 0.001; β = 0.37, p < 0.001). The mediation effects at the within-person level was supported ( β = 0.096, p < 0.01).Results at the between-person level indicated that there was a direct association between daily strength use and daily thriving ( β = 0.91, p < 0.001). In addition, there was a direct association between daily strength use and daily self-efficacy ( β = 0.82, p < 0.001) and the direct association between daily self-efficacy and daily thriving was not significant. And the mediation effect was not significant at the between-person level. Table 2 Multilevel structural equation modeling estimates for multilevel mediation analysis DSE 95%CI DT 95%CI β SE β SE Within-person level DSU 0.37 *** 0.08 [0.220, 0.528] 0.26 *** 0.06 [0.139, 0.387] DSE 0.37 *** 0.08 [0.217, 0.527] Indirect effect 0.096 ** 0.03 [0.035, 0.157] Between-person level DSU 0.82 *** 0.05 [0.728, 0.917] 0.91 *** 0.15 [0.619, 1.206] DSE -0.029 0.16 [-0.337, 0.280] Indirect effect -0.015 0.08 [-0.180, 0.150] DSU daily strength use, DSE daily self-efficacy, DT daily thriving. ** p < 0.01,*** p < 0.001 The effect sizes were presented using the standardized path coefficients β. The 1-1-1 multilevel mediation model constructed in Study 1 revealed the positive predictive effect of daily strengths use on thriving and the mediating role of daily self-efficacy between them at the within-person level, which proves the significant implications of strengths use (Peterson & Seligman, 2004 ; Wagner et al., 2020 ). When individuals make full use of their strengths in daily life, their sense of autonomy and competence is satisfied, and self-efficacy is enhanced, thereby promoting thriving. As Niemiec ( 2020 ) stated, students’ strengths use in educational settings influences their thriving through functions associated with the current environment. Therefore, in Study 2, we attempted to give full play to students’ subjective initiative by implementing a strengths intervention program in actual educational and teaching contexts, and further explore its positive effects. *** p < 0.001 3. Study 2 3.1 Participants Participants were recruited through campus activities at a senior high school in northern China and registered via questionnaire. From 123 individuals who submitted registration information, 86 senior three students were selected for the intervention based on criteria including ability to participate in the entire study, willingness to accept unscheduled follow-ups, and no history of alcohol or drug abuse. These participants were randomly divided into an intervention group and a control group, with 43 students in each. The intervention group consisted of 22 males and 21 females, with a mean age of 16.81 years ( SD = 0.59). The control group included 23 males and 20 females, with a mean age of 16.93 years ( SD = 0.51). 3.2 Procedure Consistent with Study 1, all procedures were approved by the ethics committee of Shaanxi Normal University. After obtaining permission from the collaborating senior high school for recruitment, students who provided informed consent (with additional informed consent from guardians for minors) were enrolled. The specific research process was as follows: First, one week before the intervention (pre-test, T0), both the intervention group and the control group completed the Strengths Use Scale, General Self-Efficacy Scale, and Thriving Scale. Subsequently, the intervention group received a one-week strengths-based cognitive-behavioral intervention, while the control group was informed that the activity would be rescheduled to the middle of the semester due to temporary arrangements. Immediately after the intervention (post-test, T1) and one month later (follow-up test, T2), both groups were asked to complete the aforementioned scales again. For ethical considerations, the control group members who were still willing to participate in this campus activity were provided with the intervention during the middle of the semester. 3.3 Measures The Strengths Use Scale, General Self-Efficacy Scale, and Thriving Scale used in this study were the original versions prior to the daily diary adaptation in Study 1. The intervention materials included a self-developed “Strengths Manual” and “Strengths Use Record Sheet”. The intervention protocol was based on the strengths cognitive intervention technology developed by Duan et al. ( 2019 ) with appropriate modifications. On one hand, guided by Niemiec’ s (2014) “Awareness-Exploration-Application” strengths intervention model, group intervention activities were designed following the process of “Understanding Strengths-Identifying Strengths-Exploring Strengths”. On the other hand, drawing on the core principles of cognitive-behavioral therapy (Gatchel & Rollings, 2008 ), emphasis was placed on behavioral consolidation and practical application during the intervention to enhance its suitability for senior high school students. Specifically, the one-week strengths-based cognitive-behavioral intervention in Study 2 was implemented in two phases: The first phase was a 90-minute group intervention, where group leaders facilitated cognitive changes among participants through three thematic activities (Understanding Strengths, Identifying Strengths, and Exploring Strengths). The second phase involved participants engaging in intensive practice over the following week based on self-formulated strategies of strengths use, with daily reviews to ensure the achievement of strengths use goals. Detailed information on the core activities of the strengths-based cognitive-behavioral intervention is provided in the supplementary materials. 3.4 Results 3.4.1 Preliminary Analyses To examine the homogeneity of demographic information and baseline levels between the intervention group and the control group, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was first conducted with gender, age, and scores of strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving at the pre-test (T0) as dependent variables, and group as the independent variable. The results showed that the overall group effect was not significant: Wilks’ Lambda = 0.968, F (5, 80) = 0.523, p = 0.758, η 2 p = 0.032. Subsequently, univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on age and the scores of strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving at T0 between the two groups, and a chi-square test was conducted on the gender distribution across groups. The results indicated no significant group differences in these variables (see Table 3 for details). The above findings demonstrate that the two groups were homogeneous in terms of demographic information and baseline levels. Table 3 Comparison of Demographic Information and Baseline Levels Intervention group ( N = 43) Control group ( N = 43) F (1, 84) p η 2 p ( M ± SD ) ( M ± SD ) Gender a 22/21 23/20 0.047 0.829 — Age 16.81 ± 0.59 16.93 ± 0.51 0.965 0.329 0.011 Strength use T0 4.05 ± 0.85 4.12 ± 0.75 0.177 0.675 0.002 Self-efficacy T0 2.39 ± 0.37 2.40 ± 0.33 0.015 0.902 0.000 Thriving T0 3.54 ± 0.48 3.44 ± 0.57 0.736 0.393 0.009 a The corresponding values for the gender variable are the number of cases and chi-square test results. 3.4.2 Testing the Immediate Effects of the Strengths Intervention A 2 (Group: Intervention Group, Control Group) × 2 (Time: Pre-test T0, Post-test T1) repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted for strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving respectively. The results showed that the main effects of group and time for all three indicators were not significant ( ps > 0.05), while the group × time interaction effects were all significant: for strengths use, F (1, 84) = 12.60, p = 0.001, η 2 p = 0.13; for self-efficacy, F (1, 84) = 11.04, p = 0.001, η 2 p = 0.12; and for thriving, F (1, 84) = 7.01, p = 0.010, η 2 p = 0.08. These findings indicate that the impact of the intervention on the three indicators varied over time. Further simple effects analysis results (see Fig. 2 ) revealed the following: Regarding strengths use, the post-test score of the intervention group was significantly higher than the pre-test score ( F (1, 84) = 10.78, p = 0.001, η 2 p = 0.11), while there was no significant difference in the control group’s scores before and after the intervention ( F (1, 84) = 3.02, p = 0.086, η 2 p = 0.04). Additionally, after the intervention, the intervention group’ s score was significantly higher than that of the control group ( F (1, 84) = 8.33, p = 0.005, η 2 p = 0.09), demonstrating that the intervention effectively improved senior high school students’ strengths use. For self-efficacy, the post-test score of the intervention group was significantly higher than the pre-test score ( F (1, 84) = 13.24, p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.136), whereas the control group exhibited no significant pre-post difference ( F (1, 84) = 1.12, p = 0.292, η 2 p = 0.01). After the intervention, the intervention group’ s score was significantly higher than that of the control group ( F (1, 84) = 7.97, p = 0.006, η 2 p = 0.09), indicating that the strengths intervention significantly enhanced senior high school students’ self-efficacy. With respect to thriving, the intervention group’ s post-test score was significantly higher than the pre-test score ( F (1, 84) = 4.51, p = 0.037, η 2 p = 0.05), while the control group showed no significant pre-post difference ( F (1, 84) = 2.63, p = 0.109, η 2 p = 0.03). Furthermore, after the intervention, the intervention group’ s score was significantly higher than that of the control group ( F (1, 84) = 9.77, p = 0.002, η 2 p = 0.10), suggesting that the strengths intervention significantly improved senior high school students’ thriving. Overall, after the intervention, the intervention group showed significant improvements in all three indicators (strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving) compared to the pre-test, while the control group remained relatively stable over time. Meanwhile, the intervention group significantly outperformed the control group in the post-test. These results indicate that the strengths-based cognitive-behavioral intervention has good immediate promotional effects in the short term. 3.4.3 Testing the Sustained Effects of the Intervention A 2 (Group: Intervention Group, Control Group) × 3 (Time: Pre-test T0, Post-test T1, Follow-up Test T2) repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted for strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving respectively. The results showed that the main effects of group and time for all three indicators were not significant ( ps > 0.05), while the group × time interaction effects were all significant: for strengths use, F (2, 168) = 8.58, p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.09; for self-efficacy, F (2, 168) = 5.83, p = 0.004, η 2 p = 0.07; and for thriving, F (2, 168) = 5.06, p = 0.007, η 2 p = 0.06. Further simple effects analysis results (see Table 4 ) revealed the following: Regarding strengths use scores, the intervention group’ s post-test score ( M = 4.45, SD = 0.62) and follow-up test score ( M = 4.48, SD = 0.68) were significantly higher than the pre-test score ( M = 4.05, SD = 0.85; t = -3.295, p = 0.001; t = -3.26, p = 0.002). However, there was no significant difference between the post-test and follow-up test scores ( t = -0.36, p = 0.722). Additionally, the follow-up test results indicated that the intervention group’s score was significantly higher than that of the control group ( F (2, 168) = 6.37, p = 0.013, η 2 p = 0.07). For self-efficacy scores, the intervention group’ s post-test score ( M = 2.57, SD = 0.35) and follow-up test score ( M = 2.59, SD = 0.38) were significantly higher than the pre-test score ( M = 2.39, SD = 0.37; t = -3.68, p < 0.001; t = -2.99, p = 0.004). No significant difference was observed between the post-test and follow-up test scores ( t = -0.31, p = 0.75), and the follow-up test results showed that the intervention group’ s score was significantly higher than that of the control group ( F (2, 168) = 4.82, p = 0.031, η 2 p = 0.05). With respect to thriving scores, the intervention group’ s post-test score ( M = 3.71, SD = 0.56) and follow-up test score ( M = 3.75, SD = 0.51) were significantly higher than the pre-test score ( M = 3.54, SD = 0.48; t = -2.11, p = 0.037; t = -2.33, p = 0.022). There was no significant difference between the post-test and follow-up test scores ( t = -0.54, p = 0.593), and the follow-up test results demonstrated that the intervention group’ s score was significantly higher than that of the control group ( F (2, 168) = 10.28, p = 0.002, η 2 p = 0.11). In summary, one month after the intervention, the intervention group still outperformed the control group in all three indicators (strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving), and there was no significant difference from the scores immediately after the intervention. These results indicate that the strengths-based cognitive intervention has good sustainability. Table 4 Difference analysis of pretest, posttest and follow-up test T0 - T1 T0 - T1 T1 - T2 t p t p t p Strength use −3.295 0.001 −3.263 0.002 −0.360 0.722 Self-efficacy −3.680 0.000 −2.985 0.004 −0.314 0.748 Thriving −2.114 0.037 −2.330 0.022 −0.536 0.593 Pretest T0, Post-test T1, Follow-up Test T2 4. General Discussion Based on an integrated framework of Self-Determination Theory and Resources Conservation Theory, this study took senior high school students as the research object and verified the dynamic relationship and intervention mechanism among strengths use, self-efficacy and thriving through a diary study and a controlled experiment. The following discussion elaborates on the theoretical contributions and practical implications of this study in detail. 4.1 Theoretical Contributions At the theoretical level, this study expands and deepens the existing research on strengths use and thriving mainly in three aspects: research context and subjects, daily dynamic mechanism and multilevel mediation, and the action path of strengths intervention. The specific contents are as follows: Firstly, this study extends the relationship that strengths use can positively predict thriving from the workplace to the group of Chinese senior high school students, enriching its positive effects on adolescents’ growth and development. Previous studies on strengths use and thriving have mainly focused on corporate employees, emphasizing their roles in work engagement, occupational well-being and organizational performance (Spreitzer & Porath, 2014 ; Bakker & van Woerkom, 2018 ; Miglianico et al., 2020 ). Although existing studies have shown that strengths use is closely associated with well-being and adaptive outcomes at different life stages (Harzer & Ruch, 2013 ; Proctor et al., 2011 ), empirical tests targeting adolescents, especially senior high school students under high academic pressure, remain relatively insufficient (Wood et al., 2011 ; Duan et al., 2019 ). This study took Chinese senior high school students as the research object and systematically examined the relationship between strengths use and thriving in the realistic educational context where the pressure of the College Entrance Examination and developmental tasks coexist. The results showed that strengths use is not only closely related to thriving in the workplace (Mahomed & Rothmann, 2020 ; Moore et al., 2022 ; Rothmann & Mahomed, 2019 ), but also exhibits a stable positive effect in the group of senior high school students. This finding supports the view from the perspective of developmental psychology that strengths use serves as a key cross-context and cross-developmental stage positive resource (Peterson & Seligman, 2004 ; Wagner et al., 2020 ) that can promote students’ good adaptation and healthy development. Meanwhile, this study also responds to the theoretical proposition of positive education that advocates cultivating students’ strengths and positive qualities in the school system (Niemiec, 2014 ; Seligman et al., 2009 ), providing direct evidence for the applicability of strength theory in the middle school education stage. Therefore, this study not only expands the scope of existing research in terms of research objects and contexts, but also indicates that strengths use holds important value for adolescents’ psychological adaptation and development. Secondly, a critical finding of this study is that self-efficacy mediates the predictive effect of strengths use on thriving only at the within-person level, while this mediating path is not significant at the between-person level. Previous studies on the relationships among strengths use, self-efficacy and thriving mostly relied on cross-sectional or long-interval longitudinal designs, mainly revealing the stable differences and between-person effects among variables (Ding & Chu, 2020 ; Rothmann & Mahomed, 2019 ; Kleine et al., 2019 ). However, according to the Resources Conservation Theory (Hobfoll, 1989 ) and the Job-Resources Dynamic Model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017 ), personal resources and the related positive psychological states exhibit significant situational volatility and within-day dynamic characteristics. Therefore, cross-sectional studies are difficult to distinguish between within-person fluctuation effects and between-person difference effects, and are prone to confusing the levels of action (Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013 ). By adopting a 5-day diary design and a 1-1-1 multilevel mediation model, this study decomposed daily strengths use, self-efficacy and thriving into the within-person and between-person levels for testing, making up for the deficiencies of previous cross-sectional studies. The results found that the mediating role of self-efficacy is mainly reflected at the within-person level, but not significant at the between-person level. On the one hand, it verifies the view of van Woerkom, Oerlemans and Bakker (2016) that self-efficacy is an important mediating mechanism in the relationship between strengths use and various positive outcomes; on the other hand, it reveals the daily resource activation path of the mechanism of action of strengths use, supporting the immediate constructive effect of successful experiences on self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997 ). One possible explanation for the unvalidated mediating role at the between-person level is that self-efficacy requires evaluation of various events in different environments (Schwarzer et al., 1997 ) and is easily changed by the influence of external environments or other events (Zhang et al., 2022 ). When affected by decisive factors such as situational factors (Huber et al., 2017 ), self-efficacy can only immediately enhance the positive effect of strengths use on thriving, and thus the role of self-efficacy is not obvious for some individuals. This explanation still needs to be further tested in future research by introducing different contexts and using a longer time span. In addition, factors such as hierarchical variance structure, sample homogeneity, and diary study measurement design may also affect the test power of the between-person mediating effect (Preacher, Zyphur, & Zhang, 2010 ; Nezlek, 2012 ). In short, by distinguishing the different mechanisms of action at the within-person and between-person levels through a longitudinal design, this study responds methodologically to the measurement demand of positive psychological variables from state to situation (Zhang et al., 2022 ; Brown et al., 2017 ), making the research conclusions more in line with the real psychological fluctuations and resource operation processes of adolescents in their daily study and life. Finally, this study adopted a strengths-based cognitive-behavioral intervention technology that integrates strengths intervention measures and cognitive behavioral therapy, and found that it can effectively improve senior high school students’ strengths use, self-efficacy and thriving. Although existing studies have supported the association between strengths use and positive outcomes such as well-being and engagement through correlational and longitudinal data (Dubreuil et al., 2014 ; Bakker & van Woerkom, 2018 ), intervention studies with thriving as the core outcome variable are relatively scarce (Gander et al., 2024 ; Ruch et al., 2020 ). Meanwhile, whether the effects of strengths intervention have good sustainability still needs further empirical testing. The core content of strengths intervention lies in the identification and use of one’ s own strengths, and the core content of cognitive behavioral therapy lies in cognitive restructuring, goal setting and so on. This study implemented a strengths-based cognitive-behavioral intervention through a randomized controlled design, combining strengths awareness-strengths identification-strengths application with cognitive-behavioral training (Niemiec, 2014 ; Gatchel & Rollings, 2008 ). The results showed that the intervention not only significantly improved senior high school students’ level of strengths use, but also simultaneously enhanced their self-efficacy and thriving, and the effects remained stable after one month. On the one hand, this result verifies the clinical research finding that self-efficacy can mediate the positive effects of cognitive therapy intervention (Wang et al., 2024 ); on the other hand, it indicates that the continuous use of their own strengths by the intervention subjects in daily life after the intervention is the key factor for the intervention to produce effects (Seligman et al., 2005 ), which is also consistent with the findings of the diary study: the covariation between strengths use and thriving at the daily level, partially mediated by self-efficacy, shows that the maintenance of the changes initiated by the intervention depends on individuals’ continuous use of strengths and accumulation of resources in daily life. When individuals’ strengths are exerted, the increase in experience and the acquisition of psychological resources can further satisfy their basic psychological needs, and individuals can generate a stronger sense of self-efficacy and thriving. In short, this study makes up for the deficiencies of previous studies in intervention technology and the test of sustainable effects (Gander et al., 2024 ; Duan et al., 2019 ), indicates that strengths intervention can improve personal health or produce other positive outcomes (Ghielen et al., 2018 ; Niemiec, 2014 ), and provides preliminary evidence for the causal chain among strengths use, self-efficacy and thriving. To sum up, this study has three main theoretical contributions: First, it extends the research context of the strengths use-thriving relationship from the adult workplace to the group of Chinese senior high school students, highlighting the significance of strengths use for adolescents’ positive development. Second, it adopts a diary study and multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM) to reveal the daily dynamic mechanism of self-efficacy mediating the relationship between strengths use and thriving at the within-person level, supplementing the deficiencies of previous cross-sectional studies. Third, it provides causal evidence for strengths use promoting thriving through a strengths-based cognitive-behavioral intervention, and suggests that the maintenance of intervention effects depends on individuals’ continuous daily use of strengths. 4.2 Practical Inspiration First, strengths-based cognitive-behavioral intervention program developed in this study provides schools with a directly applicable intervention tool. Building on existing strengths-based intervention techniques, this program systematically integrates core elements of cognitive-behavioral therapy, such as cognitive restructuring, goal setting, and pleasant activities arranging, and implements the intervention through structured group counseling activities and daily behavior consolidation. The results indicate that the program can significantly enhance high school students’ strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving in the short term, which is consistent with the result conclusions of Duan et al. ( 2019 ), and further validate the effectiveness of strengths-based intervention. Moreover, the program is characterized by its straightforward implementation form, relatively controllable time costs, and clear operational procedures, making it suitable for promotion by school psychologists or head teachers in mental health courses, thematic class meetings, or counseling room activities. Second, this study results support that school mental health practices should gradually shift from a “problem-fixing” approach to a “strengths-cultivating” approach. Students are encouraged to identify and use their personal strengths in daily learning and life to enhance their self-efficacy and psychological resilience. In Study 2, although the control group did not show significant differences in the scores of strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving before and after the start of the semester, a slight declining trend from pre-test to post-test was observed overall, while the intervention group showed an upward trend during the same period. This pattern suggests that after the beginning of the senior year of high school, with accelerated learning pace and increased academic demands, students’ positive psychological functioning may face a risk of decline, but systematic strengths training may mitigate the negative impact of such fluctuations to a certain extent. This study did not directly measure contextual variables such as academic stress and classroom atmosphere, and the reasons behind the downward trend still need to be further examined in future research. Building on this, the intervention adopted in this study can be regarded as a positive psychological intervention pathway centered on strengths training while also addressing emotional and cognitive regulation. It is expected that on the basis of improving well-being, reducing stress, and lowering neuroticism levels as confirmed by existing research (Gander et al., 2024 ; Niemiec, 2014 ), it can further enhance high school students’ positive psychological functionings such as self-efficacy and thriving by improving their strengths use level. Finally, this study provides practical evidence for promoting personalized mental health education that teaches students in accordance with their aptitude. Niemiec ( 2020 ) pointed out that how students use their strengths in the educational environment will affect their thriving through matching with specific situations. This study finds that self-efficacy can immediately enhance the promotive effect of strengths use on thriving at the intra-individual level. This implies that when students use their personal strengths more frequently in daily learning and life, their needs for autonomy and competence can be better fulfilled, thereby fostering a sense of control and confidence in future tasks and environmental requirements (Moore et al., 2024 ) and showing higher level of thriving. However, this mediating effect is not consistent across all students, which may be related to factors such as their growth environment, cognitive style, and past experiences (Niemiec, 2020 ). Meanwhile, the key to sustaining intervention effects lies in students continuously use their strengths in daily life (Seligman et al., 2005 ). Recent research also indicates that the habit of strengths use developed after intervention helps to improve individual abilities and well-being (Gander et al., 2024 ). Therefore, in actual teaching situations, school mental health education should introduce tools such as strengths assessment and strengths profiling on the basis of the general strengths intervention program,, formulate differentiated goals and practice tasks in combination with students’ individual characteristics and developmental needs. This approach can fully mobilize students’ subjective initiative and cultivate strengths use habits, thereby maximizing the positive effect of strengths use on thriving and overall mental health. 4.3 Research Limitations and Future Directions First, the representativeness of the research sample needs to be expanded. This study took high school students from a specific middle school in Shaanxi Province as subjects, the single source of the sample may limit the generalizability of the research results to adolescent groups in other regions or different types of schools. Future research should consider the influence of group characteristics (such as regions, school types, and grade levels) on the results, and try to he participant pool across diverse regions, educational systems, and school types to further test the generalizability of the conclusions. In addition, systematic comparisons of the relationship between strengths use and thriving across different developmental stages (such as junior high school, senior high school, and university) could provide more targeted evidence for stage-specific mental health education initiatives. It should be noted that his study was conducted within the specific context of China’ s College Entrance Examination system and school management culture, the relationship between strengths use and thriving may be affected by macro-level factors such as cultural values and examination systems. Future research could further examine the contextual applicability of the findings through cross-regional or cross-cultural comparative studies. Second, the research design and measurement methods can be further refined. Study 1 followed the relevant research paradigm (Hatano et al., 2022 ) by collecting data using a 5-day diary approach, from the perspective of dynamic processes,more frequent measurements over a longer time span could more precisely capture subtle changes in behaviors or states over time (Luo & Liu, 2024 ). Therefore, future studies could consider extending the diary research cycle or increasing the measurement frequency incorporating with more flexible time-interval designs to more deeply reveal the dynamic correlation and lag effect among strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving. The intervention in Study 2 is a general design, which is easy to operate and promote, but personalized interventions may better align with students’ personal characteristics and needs (Ruch et al., 2020 ). Future research can design differentiated intervention programs based on students’ strengths types, self-efficacy levels, psychological risk status, and other characteristics, and compare the intervention effects and cost-effectiveness of different programs. In addition, all data in this study were collected through participants’ self-reports, which may be subject to common method bias and social desirability bias. In the future, studies could introduce multi-source data collection methods, such as teacher evaluations, peer reports, behavioral observations, or objective indicators. Combining longitudinal tracking and experimental manipulations would also help enhance the objectivity of the findings and the reliability of causal inference. Third, the research content can be further deepened and expanded at the theoretical and result levels. Based on self-determination theory, this study proposes that strengths use generates multiple positive outcomes by satisfying personal basic psychological needs. However, the relationships between the three psychological needs and different types of outcomes may be different, which may lead to distinct motivational benefits (Van den Broeck et al., 2010 ). This suggests that when strengths use fulfills different psychological needs, it may point to different positive outcome patterns, which need to be distinguished and validated in future research. On the other hand, the vast majority of existing strengths-based intervention studies has predominantly focused on outcomes at the subjective experience level, but little is known about the effectiveness of the intervention in stimulating specific positive behavioral outcomes (Bates-Krakoff et al., 2022 ). Future research can be further extended to the behavioral domains such as academic performance and interpersonal interaction behaviors, to more comprehensively present the positive role of strengths use and provide multi-dimensional support for the practical value of strengths-based education. At the same time, this study focuses on the mediating role of self-efficacy but it didn’t incorporate other potential mechanism variables. In the future, on the basis of integrating self-determination theory and resources conservation theory, the mediating effect of variables such as core self-evaluation, perceived social support, and positive emotions, can be further examined to construct a more comprehensive and hierarchical mechanism model. Combined with multi-level analysis methods and complex model testing, the understanding of the chain from strengths use to psychological resources to thriving can be deepened. 5. Conclusions Based on the current situation and actual needs of school mental health education, this study explores how strengths use and its intervention influence high school students’ thriving by integrating self-determination theory and resources conservation theory. The following conclusions are drawn: (1) In the daily life of high school students, daily strengths use can positively affect their daily thriving, and daily strengths use can influence their daily psychological thriving through the mediating role of daily self-efficacy at the within-person level. (2) The strengths-based cognitive-behavioral intervention demonstrates both immediate and sustained positive effects on high school students, significantly enhancing their levels of strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving after the intervention. Combining the results of the two studies, this study concludes that strengths use and its intervention promote high school students’ thriving by elevating their level of self-efficacy. Declarations Acknowledgements We thank everyone who participated in this study. We thank the editor and reviewers for the positive and constructive comments regarding our paper. Conflict of Interest The authors declare no competing interests. Ethical Approval This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the ethics committee on human research of XXX University. Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. References Allan, B. A., & Duffy, R. D. (2014). Examining moderators of signature strengths use and well-being: Calling and signature strengths level. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15 , 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9424-0 Arsenio, W. F., & Loria, S. (2014). Coping with negative emotions: Connections with adolescents’ academic performance and stress. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 175 (1-2), 76–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2013.806293 Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056 Bakker, A. B., & van Woerkom, M. (2018). Strengths use in organizations: A positive approach of occupational health. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie Canadienne, 59 (1), 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000120 Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. A merican psychologist, 37 (2), 122. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122 Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of social and clinical psychology, 4 (3), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359 Bandura, A. (1988). Organizational application of social cognitive theory. Australian Journal of Management, 13 (2), 275–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/031289628801300210 Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman. Bates-Krakoff, J., Parente, A., McGrath, R., Rashid, T., & Niemiec, R. (2022). Are character strength-based positive interventions effective for eliciting positive behavioral outcomes? A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Wellbeing, 12 (3), 56–80. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v12i3.2111 Biswas-Diener, R., Kashdan, T. B., & Minhas, G. (2011). A dynamic approach to psychological strength development and intervention. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6 (2), 106–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2010.545429 Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experience sampling research. Guilford Press. Botha, C., & Mostert, K. (2014). A structural model of job resources, organisational and individual strengths use and work engagement. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 40 (1), 1–11. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC149660 Brown, D. J., Arnold, R., Fletcher, D., & Standage, M. (2017). Human thriving. European Psychologist, 22 , 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000294 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological inquiry, 11 (4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 Ding, H., & Chu, X. (2020). Employee strengths use and thriving at work: The roles of self-efficacy and perceived humble leadership. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 19 (4), 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000262 Douglass, R. P., & Duffy, R. D. (2015). Strengths use and life satisfaction: A moderated mediation approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16 , 619–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9525-4 Duan, W., & Bu, H. (2019). Randomized trial investigating of a single-session character-strength-based cognitive intervention on freshman’s adaptability. Research on Social Work Practice, 29 (1), 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731517699525 Duan, W., Bu, H., Zhao, J., & Guo, X. (2019). Examining the mediating roles of strengths knowledge and strengths use in a 1-year single-session character strength-based cognitive intervention. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20 , 1673–1688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-0014-z Duan, W., Guan, Y., & Gan, F. (2016). Brief inventory of thriving: A comprehensive measurement of wellbeing. Chinese Sociological Dialogue, 1 (1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/2397200916665230 Duan, W., & Wang, Y. (2018). Latent profile analysis of the three-dimensional model of character strengths to distinguish at-strengths and at-risk populations. Quality of Life Research, 27 , 2983–2990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1933-1 Dubreuil, P., Forest, J., & Courcy, F. (2014). From strengths use to work performance: The role of harmonious passion, subjective vitality, and concentration. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9 (4), 335–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2 Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. International Universities Press. Fang, J., Zhang, M., & Qiu, H. (2010). Multilevel mediation effects based on hierarchical linear modeling. Advances in Psychological Science , 18 (8), 1329–1338. Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2015). A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Personality and social psychology review, 19 (2), 113–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314544222. Gander, F., Wagner, L., & Niemiec, R. M. (2024). Do character strengths-based interventions change character strengths? Two randomized controlled intervention studies. Collabra: Psychology , 10(1), 108604. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.108604 Gatchel, R. J., & Rollings, K. H. (2008). Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with cognitive behavioral therapy. The Spine Journal, 8 (1), 40–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2007.10.007 Ghielen, S. T. S., van Woerkom, M., & Christina Meyers, M. (2018). Promoting positive outcomes through strengths interventions: A literature review. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13 (6), 573–585. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2017.1365164 Govindji, R., Linley, P. A. (2007). Strengths use, self-concordance and well-being: Implications for strengths coaching and coaching psychologists. International Coaching Psychology Review, 2 (2), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/2397200916665230 Han, X., Li, Y., & Li, J. (2024). Having fun and thriving: The impact of fun human resource practices on employees’ autonomous motivation and thriving at work. Human Resource Management, 63 (5), 813–828. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22228 Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2013). The application of signature character strengths and positive experiences at work. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 965–983. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9364-0 Hatano, K., Luyckx, K., Hihara, S., Sugimura, K., & I. Becht, A. (2022). Daily identity processes and emotions in young adulthood: a five-day daily-diary method. Journal of youth and adolescence, 51 (9), 1815–1828. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-022-01629-x Hildenbrand, K., Sacramento, C. A., & Binnewies, C. (2018). Transformational leadership and burnout: The role of thriving and followers’ openness to experience. Journal of occupational health psychology, 23 (1), 31. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000051 Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American psychologist, 44 (3), 513. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513 Huber, A., Webb, D., & Höfer, S. (2017). The German version of the strengths use scale: the relation of using individual strengths and well-being. Frontiers in psychology, 8 , 243879. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00637 Kleine, A. K., Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2019). Thriving at work: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40 (9-10), 973–999. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2375 Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford publications. Liao, H., & Yan, A. (2014). Effects, influencing factors, and mechanisms of emotional labor. Advances in Psychological Science , 22 (9), 1504–1512. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2014.01504 Lin, X., Liu, Z., & Qiu, C. (2023). New approaches to school mental health education in the new era. People’ s Education , (12), 41–45. Luo, X., & Liu, H. (2024). Estimating test reliability in intensive longitudinal studies: A multilevel and dynamic perspective. Advances in Psychological Science , 32 (4), 700–714. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2024.00700 Luo, Y., Cui, Z., Zou, P., Wang, K., Lin, Z., He, J., & Wang, J.(2020). Mental health problems and associated factors inChinese high school students in Henan province: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of EnvironmentalResearch and Public Health, 17 (16), 5944. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165944 Maddux, J. E. (2016). Self-efficacy. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), In Interpersonal and intrapersonal expectancies (pp. 41–46). Routledge. Mahomed, F. E., & Rothmann, S. (2020). Strength use, training and development, thriving, and intention to leave: the mediating effects of psychological need satisfaction. South African Journal of Psychology, 50 (1), 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081246319849030 Mansour, S., & Tremblay, D. G. (2018). The mediating role of work engagement between psychosocial safety climate and organisational citizenship behaviours: a study in the nursing and health sector in Quebec. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 18 , 51–71. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJHRDM.2018.092287 Marcionetti, J., & Rossier, J. (2021). A longitudinal study of relations among adolescents’ self-esteem, general self-efficacy, career adaptability, and life satisfaction. Journal of Career Development, 48 (4), 475–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845319861691 Matsuo, M. (2020). The role of work authenticity in linking strengths use to career satisfaction and proactive behavior: a two-wave study. Career Development International , 25(6), 617–630. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-01-2020-0015 Miglianico, M., Dubreuil, P., Miquelon, P., Bakker, A. B., & Martin-Krumm, C. (2020). Strength use in the workplace: A literature review. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21 , 737–764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00095-w Moore, H. L., Bakker, A. B., & van Mierlo, H. (2022). Using strengths and thriving at work: The role of colleague strengths recognition and organizational context. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 31 (2), 260–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2021.1952990 Moore, H. L., Bakker, A. B., van Mierlo, H., & van Woerkom, M. (2024). Daily strengths use and work performance: A self‐determination perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 97(1), 190–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12466 Nezlek, J. B. (2012). Multilevel modeling analyses of diary-style data. Handbook of research methods for studying daily life, 676 , 357–383. Niemiec, R. M. (2014). Mindfulness and character strengths: A practical guide to flourishing. Boston, MA: Hogrefe Publishing. Niemiec, R. M. (2020). Six functions of character strengths for thriving at times of adversity and opportunity: A theoretical perspective. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 15 , 551–572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-018-9692-2 Pap, Z., Vîrgă, D., & Lupșa, D. (2022). Bringing our best selves to work: Proactive vitality management and strengths use predicting daily engagement in interaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1015397. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1015397 Paterson, T. A., Luthans, F., & Jeung, W. (2014). Thriving at work: Impact of psychological capital and supervisor support. Journal of organizational behavior, 35(3), 434–446. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1907 Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford University Press. Porath, C., Spreitzer, G., Gibson, C., & Garnett, F. G. (2012). Thriving at work: Toward its measurement, construct validation, and theoretical refinement. Journal of organizational behavior, 33 (2), 250–275. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.756 Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020141 Proctor, C., Maltby, J., & Linley, P. A. (2011). Strengths use as a predictor of well-being and health-related quality of life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12 , 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9181-2 Robertson, I. T., Cooper, C. L., & Johnson, S. (2011). Well-being: Productivity and happiness at work . Palgrave Macmillan. Rothmann, S., & Mahomed, F. E. (2019). Strengths use, deficit correction, thriving and performance of academics at universities of technology. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 45 (1), 1–10. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC-15787e1c48 Ruch, W., Niemiec, R. M., McGrath, R. E., Gander, F., & Proyer, R. T. (2020). Character strengths-based interventions: Open questions and ideas for future research. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 15 (5), 680–684. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2020.1789700 Schwarzer, R., Bäßler, J., Kwiatek, P., Schröder, K., & Zhang, J. X. (1997). The assessment of optimistic self‐beliefs: comparison of the German, Spanish, and Chinese versions of the general self‐efficacy scale. Applied psychology, 46 (1), 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01096.x Seligman, M. E. P., Ernst, R. M., Gillham, J., Reivich, K., & Linkins, M. (2009). Positive education: Positive psychology and classroom interventions. Oxford Review of Education, 35 (3), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980902934563 Seligman, M. E. p., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: empirical validation of interventions. The American psychologist, 60 (5), 410–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.410 Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., & Grant, A. M. (2005). A socially embedded model of thriving at work. Organization science, 16 (5), 537–549. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0153 Spreitzer, G. M., & Porath, C. (2014). Self-determination as a nutriment for thriving: Building an integrative model of human growth at work. The Oxford handbook of work engagement, motivation, and self-determination theory (pp. 245–258). Oxford University Press. Su, R., Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2014). The development and validation of the Comprehensive Inventory of Thriving (CIT) and the Brief Inventory of Thriving (BIT). Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 6 (3), 251–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12027 Taylor, E. C., Livingston, L. A., Clutterbuck, R. A., Callan, M. J., & Shah, P. (2023). Psychological strengths and well-being: Strengths use predicts quality of life, well-being and mental health in autism. Autism, 27(6), 1826–1839. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613221146440 Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., Soenens, B., & Lens, W. (2010). Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: Construction and initial validation of the Work‐related Basic Need Satisfaction scale. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 83 (4), 981–1002. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X481382 van Woerkom, M., Mostert, K., Els, C., Bakker, A. B., De Beer, L., & Rothmann Jr, S. (2016). Strengths use and deficit correction in organizations: Development and validation of a questionnaire. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25 (6), 960–975. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1193010 Veyis, F., Seçer, İ., & Ulas, S. (2019). An investigation of the mediator role of school burnout between academic stress and academic motivation. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 8 (4), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v8n4p46 Wagner, L., Gander, F., Proyer, R. T., & Ruch, W. (2020). Character strengths and PERMA: Investigating the relationships of character strengths with a multidimensional framework of well-being. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 15 , 307–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-018-9695-z Wang, C., Hu, Z., & Liu, Y. (2001). Reliability and validity of the general self-efficacy scale. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology , (1), 37–40. Wang, Y., Mao, F., Peng, Y., Guo, Z., Jiang, S., Wang, S., & Wang, X. (2024). Effects and mechanisms of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy on anxiety, self-efficacy, and coping styles among medical students. Chinese Journal of Health Psychology., 32 (05), 781–787. https://doi.org/10.13342/j.cnki.cjhp.2024.05.026 Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Kashdan, T. B., & Hurling, R. (2011). Using personal and psychological strengths leads to increases in well-being over time: A longitudinal study and the development of the strengths use questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 50 , 15–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PAID.2010.08.004 Ye, N., Wang, L., Zhang, L., & Sun, X. (2023). The mediating role of self-control between physical activity and sleep quality among college students: Evidence from a diary study. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology, 29 (01), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.20058/j.cnki.cjap.022015 Yuan, Q. (2022). Academic stress predicts negative emotions and academic performances: The role of mindset in moderation process. In Proceedings of the 2022 3rd International Conference on Mental Health, Education and Human Development (MHEHD 2022) (pp. 91−98). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.220704.016 Zhang, W., Gao, W., & Liu, X. (2022). Does attending elite colleges matter in the relationship between self-esteem and general self-efficacy of students in China? Heliyon, 8 (6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09723 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Supplementaryinformation.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9099374","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":630847403,"identity":"1e48d86f-1683-4299-87cd-f6facdacae5b","order_by":0,"name":"Xinming Zhang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Shaanxi Normal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xinming","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhang","suffix":""},{"id":630847404,"identity":"c74ed067-894c-4802-bac5-b00f2d14f0cb","order_by":1,"name":"Qiuni He","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Shaanxi Normal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Qiuni","middleName":"","lastName":"He","suffix":""},{"id":630847405,"identity":"67e3afc2-c742-4d76-af9b-323005a537dd","order_by":2,"name":"Zhen Liu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Shaanxi Normal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zhen","middleName":"","lastName":"Liu","suffix":""},{"id":630847406,"identity":"b7dd1b17-f911-430e-8fe1-4259ca19a570","order_by":3,"name":"Ying Li","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Shaanxi Normal University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ying","middleName":"","lastName":"Li","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-12 02:54:10","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9099374/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9099374/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":108182741,"identity":"26ece2bd-1427-41dc-878f-d66da0f5ceb9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-30 08:59:31","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":49282,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe mediation effect of daily self-efficacy between daily strength use and daily thriving\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e***\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9099374/v1/21282906bcb38a03d9c7deb6.png"},{"id":108090436,"identity":"d49c5605-6c98-4d7e-a818-df7caa1d9387","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-29 09:13:51","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":31734,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePre-test and post-test differences between the intervention group and the control group\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9099374/v1/0bcbd39ed7f983589190d3ba.png"},{"id":108184336,"identity":"26f271c7-6ed7-4a17-ba96-4dc9958bd39f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-30 09:03:50","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":645799,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9099374/v1/02717118-447a-44f9-9f7b-a11a88837914.pdf"},{"id":108090434,"identity":"1d722f9a-24ce-4275-a4ef-7b5dae4d2343","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-29 09:13:50","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":14650,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Supplementaryinformation.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9099374/v1/43176d3075e1e91729a2dcbd.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Effect of strengths use on thriving and its intervention among high school students","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.1 Academic Stress and Thriving Among High School Students\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWith the development of society and the refinement of the educational evaluation system, modern education has increasingly raised requirements for students\u0026rsquo; comprehensive literacy. In China, the competitive pressure of the College Entrance Examination (Gaokao) has exposed high school students to widespread academic stress (Luo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Previous studies have shown that prolonged and excessive academic stress can trigger various mental health issues, such as depression, emotional fluctuations, and academic burnout (Arsenio \u0026amp; Loria, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Veyis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Yuan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, according to Erikson\u0026rsquo; s psychosocial development theory (Erikson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1959\u003c/span\u003e), high school students are in the stage of conflict between self-identity and role confusion. This stage is a critical window for their psychological development, but it is also a high-incidence period for psychological problems. Therefore, focusing on the mental health of high school students holds important practical significance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this context, the mere prevention of psychological problems is far from sufficient. Instead, it is more imperative to examine whether adolescents can maintain optimal functioning and achieve positive development under stressful conditions-that is, whether they can attain a state of thriving. Thriving not only reflects whether adolescents are \u0026ldquo;free from problems\u0026rdquo; but also embodies their ability to achieve growth amid academic challenges and developmental tasks, serving as an important indicator for assessing adolescents\u0026rsquo; mental health and positive development levels (Su et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Brown et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.2 From the Perspective of Positive Psychology: Strengths and Strengths Use\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe rise of positive psychology has provided new theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for promoting adolescents\u0026rsquo; mental health. In recent years, researchers have proposed that school mental health education should shift from a problem-solving orientation to one focused on cultivating positive psychological qualities. By integrating the core philosophy of positive psychology into educational systems and teaching practices, educators can effectively foster the development of students\u0026rsquo; positive psychological traits (Lin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Within this framework, strengths\u0026mdash;as one of the core components of positive psychology\u0026mdash;have attracted extensive attention owing to their focus on individuals\u0026rsquo; potential, talents, as well as their promotive effects on individuals\u0026rsquo; positive subjective experiences and organizational development (Miglianico et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Wagner et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is noteworthy that strengths alone do not automatically translate into positive outcomes. Their effectiveness depends not only on factors such as environment, values, and interests, but also on individuals\u0026rsquo; behavioral patterns\u0026mdash;namely, Strengths use (Biswas-Diener et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Strengths use refers to the behavior of individuals proactively utilizing their own strengths (van Woerkom \u0026amp; Mostert, 2016). It influences the extent to which individuals achieve optimal functioning across diverse contexts, including daily life, education, organizations, and clinical settings (Allan \u0026amp; Duffy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Botha \u0026amp; Mostert, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Pap et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Taylor et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). A large body of researches has demonstrated that strengths use plays a pivotal role in enriching psychological resources and enhancing positive subjective experiences such as well-being and life satisfaction across different life stages (Proctor et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Douglass \u0026amp; Duffy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Matsuo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This suggests that strengths Use constitutes an overarching trend in individual development and is closely associated with positive states and behaviors (Harzer \u0026amp; Ruch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, Dubreuil (2014) found that strengths use can improve individuals\u0026rsquo; harmonious passion, subjective vitality, and concentration, thereby facilitating their performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.3 Thriving and Its Relationship with Strengths Use\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThriving is typically defined as a process and state in which individuals develop their psychological or social functioning in adversity, or achieve and even exceed their goals in opportunities (Feeney \u0026amp; Collins, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). In empirical researches, thriving is often conceptualized as an integrated experience of high well-being and optimal functioning, serving as a joint manifestation of individual development and success. It can be assessed by levels of high well-being and perceived high performance (Brown et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Previous studies on thriving have mainly focused on the organizational context with corporate employees as the target group (Spreitzer \u0026amp; Porath, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), concentrating on the positive benefits it brings to organizations, such as reducing job burnout (Hildenbrand et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeanwhile, existing research has also found that thriving can facilitate individuals\u0026rsquo; positive development in psychological, physical, and social domains (Su et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Porath et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). For high school students, thriving may enable them to better mobilize internal and external resources in high-pressure environments to cope with multiple developmental tasks, and achieve positive growth.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a theoretical perspective, thriving is a prototypical positive psychological state (Porath et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Su et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), which is influenced by a variety of personal resources such as positive cognitions and psychological resilience (Brown et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Bakker (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) argued that strengths use can be regarded as a specific form of personal resource to enhance individuals\u0026rsquo; positive psychological states. Study by Rothmann and Mahomed (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) found that strengths use was significantly and positively correlated with thriving in the workplace context. For instance, strengths use can predict employees\u0026rsquo; well-being (Bakker \u0026amp; van Woerkom, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), and well-being in turn can further enhance thriving (Robertson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). In terms of functional characteristics, the positive effects generated by strengths use are highly consistent with the core connotation of thriving. However, the specific relationship and mechanism of action between the two remain insufficiently systematically examined in the adolescent population.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.4 The Mediating Effect of Self-Efficacy in the Relationship Between Strengths Use and Thriving\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-efficacy refers to an individual's subjective conviction in their ability to successfully execute the behaviors required to achieve specific goals. It focuses not on the behavior itself, but on the level of confidence an individual has in utilizing their own capabilities to accomplish a task or perform an action. Bandura (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1982\u003c/span\u003e) argued that successful experiences are one of important sources of self-efficacy formation. Essentially, strengths use is a process in which individuals tap into their potential talents and accumulate successful experiences through practice, and thus it may theoretically have a positive relationship with self-efficacy. A longitudinal study targeting engineers found that the more individuals used their strengths in daily work, the more likely they were to achieve personal goals, thereby stimulating higher self-efficacy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs a positive personal resource (Marcionetti \u0026amp; Rossier, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), self-efficacy helps individuals successfully complete tasks by regulating related resources such as motivation and behavior (Schwarzer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e), and it enhances their physical and mental health as well as positive behavioral performance (Bandura, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Maddux, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). An individual's level of self-efficacy determines their level of motivation, which in turn is closely related to the degree of effort invested and persistence maintained in challenging situations (Bandura, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e). From the perspective of positive functioning, thriving, as an important indicator for assessing mental health (Su et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), is influenced by individual motivation (Spreitzer \u0026amp; Porath, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Han et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Research has found that employees\u0026rsquo; self-efficacy can enhance their thriving at work (Paterson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-Determination Theory (Self-Determination Theory; Deci \u0026amp; Ryan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) emphasizes the satisfaction of individuals\u0026rsquo; basic psychological needs (including autonomy, competence, and relatedness) is a critical condition for promoting mental health and positive functioning. Strengths use enables individuals to engage in activities they excel at, thereby satisfying their basic psychological needs (Botha \u0026amp; Mostert, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Moore et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Conservation of Resources Theory (Hobfoll, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e) highlights that individuals with more resources will strive to acquire and accumulate additional resources through their behaviors, and abundant personal resources will further foster positive psychological outcomes (Spreitzer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e;Mansour \u0026amp; Tremblay, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Based on this, it can be inferred that strengths use, on one hand, satisfies basic psychological needs and on the other, it promotes the accumulation of successful experiences, helping individuals gain positive psychological resources such as self-efficacy (Bakker \u0026amp; van Woerkom, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Botha \u0026amp; Mostert, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), thereby enhancing their thriving (Dubreuil et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Liao, Yan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). In other words, self-efficacy likely plays a mediating role between strengths use and thriving.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.5 Limitations of Previous Studies\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough existing studies have provided direct or indirect evidence for the positive relationship between strengths use and thriving, several limitations still remain.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, regarding research contexts and subjects, most relevant studies have been conducted in work environments (Kleine et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Miglianico et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) with research subjects predominantly being adults\u0026mdash;especially corporate employees. The conceptual constructs and measurement tools are also more applicable to the organizational field, to a certain extent neglecting the role of strengths use and thriving in adolescents\u0026rsquo; personal growth and school life (Wood et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Duan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). For high school students facing the combined pressures of the college entrance exam and developmental tasks, it is necessary to systematically examine the relationships between strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving within developmental and positive psychology frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, in terms of research methods, strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving are all characterized by dynamic changes in response to external environments (van Woerkom, Oerlemans \u0026amp; Bakker, 2016; Zhang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Brown et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Traditional cross-sectional studies or longitudinal designs with long intervals struggle to capture the fluctuations of these variables in daily life, and particularly failed to distinguish between intra-individual (changes in the same person over time) and inter-individual (differences between different people) mechanisms. Adopting a diary method combined with a multilevel mediation model allows for observing variable fluctuations in natural contexts over consecutive days, distinguishing intra-individual and inter-individual effects, and thus more precisely reveal the dynamic relationships among strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, regarding intervention research, previous strength-based intervention studies have primarily focused on outcomes such as employees\u0026rsquo; well-being, depression and stress (Gander et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Niemiec, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Ruch et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), they rarely treat thriving as a core outcome variable and systematically examine the pathways of mediating variables like self-efficacy, and most studies have not systematically tested or reported the sustainability of intervention effects (Duan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). In the context of high school seniors facing intense academic pressure and adaptation challenges, it is necessary to develop and evaluate a strength-based cognitive-behavioral intervention program suitable for this group. This would explore how to enhance their strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving by activating personal resources and test the immediacy and sustainability of the intervention effects.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.6 Purposes and Design of This Study\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, this study takes high school students as research subjects, and under the integrated framework of Self-Determination Theory and Conservation of Resources Theory, it focuses on this group's strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving, aiming to address the following key research questions:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(1) Can high school students\u0026rsquo; strengths use in daily life predict their thriving?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(2) Does self-efficacy mediate the relationship between strengths use and thriving, particularly at the intra-individual level?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(3) Can the strength-based cognitive-behavioral intervention enhance high school students\u0026rsquo; strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving, and produce sustained effects?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo this end, the study designs interconnected sub-studies.. Study 1 adopts a five-day diary method to continuously observe high school students\u0026rsquo; strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving in daily life. It uses multilevel mediation models to test the predictive effect of strengths use on thriving, as well as the role of self-efficacy in this relationship, at both the intra-individual and inter-individual levels. Study 2 integrates the core elements of cognitive-behavioral therapy on the basis of existing strength-based cognitive intervention techniques to develop a strength-based cognitive-behavioral intervention suitable for high school students. Using a randomized controlled trial design, it examines the immediate and sustained effects of the intervention on enhancing high school students\u0026rsquo; strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving. Thus, this study provides more stronger causal evidence for the mechanism underlying how strengths use promotes thriving among high school students, and also offers an operational intervention pathway for school mental health education practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"2. Study1","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Participants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll participants were recruited from one senior high school in a northern Chinese city through a cluster sampling procedure. A total of 169 students were recruited and participated in this study, among whom those who failed to complete all the diary surveys were excluded. Therefore, a total of 146 (86.39%) students who completed all five daily questionnaires were included in the final analyses (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003eage\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 17.15, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003eage\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.72; 54.79% males).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Procedure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfter all study protocols were approved by the ethics committee of XXX University, the research team contacted the school administrators for permission to recruit. Only students who provided assent and informed consent from their parents participated in this project. This study adopted an offline questionnaire administration method. During data collection, students first completed a survey on demographic information. Participants were then fully briefed on the general content, overall procedure, and precautions of the study, with an emphasis that all data would be used solely for academic research purposes and kept strictly confidential. Next, they completed the daily surveys independently for five consecutive days. Specifically, paper-and-pencil questionnaires were distributed to participants at 9:30 p.m. daily. Participants were asked to respond to questions regarding their daily strengths use, daily self-efficacy, and daily thriving based on their actual experiences and true feelings of the day. Upon completion of the entire diary study, all participants were provided with gifts as a token of appreciation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Measures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.1 Daily strength use\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDaily strength use was assessed using the Chinese version of the Strengths Use Scale revised by Duan et al. (2018), which was originally developed by Govindji and Linley (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). To adapt the scale for daily diary administration and improve response rates, four representative items with high factor loadings were selected and reworded for for daily assessment, such as \"Today, I was able to use my own strengths\". Participants responded on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (\"strongly disagree\") to 7 (\"strongly agree\"). In Study 1, the Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α for this scale across the five days ranged from 0.91 to 0.96. The within-level Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α was 0.79 and the between-level Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α was 0.99. These values indicate good internal consistency at both the within- and between-person levels.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.2 Daily self-efficacy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDaily self-efficacy was assessed using the adapted Chinese version of the General Self-Efficacy Scale (Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e), which was originally developed by Schwarzer et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, four representative items were selected, such as \"Today, I was confident in my ability to effectively cope with any unexpected events\". Participants responded on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (\"completely inconsistent\") to 4 (\"completely consistent\"). In Study 1, the Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α for this scale across the five days ranged from 0.80 to 0.86. The within-level Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α was 0.67 and the between-level Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α was 0.97, indicating good reliability .\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.3 Daily thriving\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDaily thriving was assessed using the Chinese version of the Brief Inventory of Thriving revised by Duan et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), which was originally developed by Su et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, four representative items were selected, such as \"Today, I felt optimistic about my future\". Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (\"strongly disagree\") to 5 (\"strongly agree\"). In Study 1, the Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α for this scale across the five days ranged from 0.81 to 0.88. The within-level Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α was 0.70 and the between-level Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α was 0.93, which indicates good reliability and validity for the measure at both levels. .\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4 Data Analytic Strategy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data in this study consist of two nested levels: the first is within-person level data, referring to the repeated measures data obtained from each participant throughout the daily diary study; the second is between-person level data, reflecting individual differences across distinct participants. Specifically, within-person level (Level 1, N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;730) data are nested within between-person level (Level 2, N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;146) data (Hatano et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Fang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Ye et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Repeated measures data collected via the diary survey are suitable for analysis by constructing a 1-1-1 multilevel mediation model, which can avoid confounding of level-specific differences and accurately elucidate the underlying mechanisms among variables (Fang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). The data processing procedure is outlined as follows:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, the descriptive statistics, correlational analyses and t-tests for the main variables were conducted using SPSS 26.0. Second, Mplus 8.3 was used to calculate the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for the main variables in the sample. The proportion of within-person variance is represented by 1-ICC. Third, multilevel regression analyses were performed using Mplus 8.3 to examine the direct effects among variables, thereby providing a basis for constructing the mediation model. Finally, a 1-1-1 model was constructed using Mplus 8.3 to conduct multilevel mediation analysis based on multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM). Models were estimated using the maximum likelihood method. Model fit was considered good when 2/ df\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;5, CFI and TLI\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;0.90, RMSEA and SRMR\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.08 (Kline, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples was employed to test the significance of the indirect effects. An indirect effect was considered statistically significant if its 95% confidence interval did not include zero, indicating the presence of a mediation effect.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5 Result\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5.1 Preliminary Analyses\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics and correlations are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. All main study variables were positively associated with each other at the within- and between-person levels. The ICCs were 0.643, 0.556, and 0.620 for daily strength use, daily self-efficacy, and daily thriving, respectively. This indicates that 35.7% of the variance in daily strength use, 44.4% of the variance in daily self-efficacy, and 38.0% of the variance in daily thriving could be explained by within-person fluctuations. Moreover, independent samples t-tests were conducted to examine the gender differences in daily strength use, daily self-efficacy, and daily thriving, and no gender differences were found (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.36, 1.29, 0.17; \u003cem\u003eps\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics and correlations for study variables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"9\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Age\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eICC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ew\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.72\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. DSU\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.643\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.224\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.535\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.301\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.084\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.600\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.652\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. DSE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.556\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.598\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.655\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.527\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.044\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.746\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.536\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. DT\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.620\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.614\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.042\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.872\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.073\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.795\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.648\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"9\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe correlation coefficients of the within- and between-person levels were presented above and below the diagonal, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDSU\u003c/em\u003e daily strength use, \u003cem\u003eDSE\u003c/em\u003e daily self-efficacy, \u003cem\u003eDT\u003c/em\u003e daily thriving. **\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5.2 MSEM Mediation Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eResults examining the association between daily strength use and daily thriving and the mediating role of daily self-efficacy appear in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e and Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. Model fit indices showed it was an acceptable model (χ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;212.144; \u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;102; RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.038; CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.965; TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.954; SRMR \u003csub\u003ewithin\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.043, SRMR \u003csub\u003ebetween\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.035).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResults at the within-person level indicated that there was a direct association between daily strength use and daily thriving (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.26, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001). Moreover, the direct association between daily strength use and daily self-efficacy and the direct association between daily self-efficacy and daily thriving were significant (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.37, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001; \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.37, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001). The mediation effects at the within-person level was supported (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.096, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01).Results at the between-person level indicated that there was a direct association between daily strength use and daily thriving (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.91, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001). In addition, there was a direct association between daily strength use and daily self-efficacy (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.82, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001) and the direct association between daily self-efficacy and daily thriving was not significant. And the mediation effect was not significant at the between-person level.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMultilevel structural equation modeling estimates for multilevel mediation analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDSE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e95%CI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDT\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e95%CI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin-person level\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDSU\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.37\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.220, 0.528]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.26\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.139, 0.387]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDSE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.37\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.217, 0.527]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndirect effect\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.096\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.035, 0.157]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBetween-person level\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDSU\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.82\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.728, 0.917]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.91\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.619, 1.206]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDSE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.029\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[-0.337, 0.280]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndirect effect\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.015\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[-0.180, 0.150]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"8\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDSU daily strength use, DSE daily self-efficacy, DT daily thriving. **\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01,***\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe effect sizes were presented using the standardized path coefficients β.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe 1-1-1 multilevel mediation model constructed in Study 1 revealed the positive predictive effect of daily strengths use on thriving and the mediating role of daily self-efficacy between them at the within-person level, which proves the significant implications of strengths use (Peterson \u0026amp; Seligman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Wagner et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). When individuals make full use of their strengths in daily life, their sense of autonomy and competence is satisfied, and self-efficacy is enhanced, thereby promoting thriving. As Niemiec (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) stated, students\u0026rsquo; strengths use in educational settings influences their thriving through functions associated with the current environment. Therefore, in Study 2, we attempted to give full play to students\u0026rsquo; subjective initiative by implementing a strengths intervention program in actual educational and teaching contexts, and further explore its positive effects.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Study 2","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Participants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants were recruited through campus activities at a senior high school in northern China and registered via questionnaire. From 123 individuals who submitted registration information, 86 senior three students were selected for the intervention based on criteria including ability to participate in the entire study, willingness to accept unscheduled follow-ups, and no history of alcohol or drug abuse. These participants were randomly divided into an intervention group and a control group, with 43 students in each. The intervention group consisted of 22 males and 21 females, with a mean age of 16.81 years (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.59). The control group included 23 males and 20 females, with a mean age of 16.93 years (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.51).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Procedure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsistent with Study 1, all procedures were approved by the ethics committee of Shaanxi Normal University. After obtaining permission from the collaborating senior high school for recruitment, students who provided informed consent (with additional informed consent from guardians for minors) were enrolled. The specific research process was as follows: First, one week before the intervention (pre-test, T0), both the intervention group and the control group completed the Strengths Use Scale, General Self-Efficacy Scale, and Thriving Scale. Subsequently, the intervention group received a one-week strengths-based cognitive-behavioral intervention, while the control group was informed that the activity would be rescheduled to the middle of the semester due to temporary arrangements. Immediately after the intervention (post-test, T1) and one month later (follow-up test, T2), both groups were asked to complete the aforementioned scales again. For ethical considerations, the control group members who were still willing to participate in this campus activity were provided with the intervention during the middle of the semester.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Measures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Strengths Use Scale, General Self-Efficacy Scale, and Thriving Scale used in this study were the original versions prior to the daily diary adaptation in Study 1. The intervention materials included a self-developed \u0026ldquo;Strengths Manual\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Strengths Use Record Sheet\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe intervention protocol was based on the strengths cognitive intervention technology developed by Duan et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) with appropriate modifications. On one hand, guided by Niemiec\u0026rsquo; s (2014) \u0026ldquo;Awareness-Exploration-Application\u0026rdquo; strengths intervention model, group intervention activities were designed following the process of \u0026ldquo;Understanding Strengths-Identifying Strengths-Exploring Strengths\u0026rdquo;. On the other hand, drawing on the core principles of cognitive-behavioral therapy (Gatchel \u0026amp; Rollings, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), emphasis was placed on behavioral consolidation and practical application during the intervention to enhance its suitability for senior high school students. Specifically, the one-week strengths-based cognitive-behavioral intervention in Study 2 was implemented in two phases: The first phase was a 90-minute group intervention, where group leaders facilitated cognitive changes among participants through three thematic activities (Understanding Strengths, Identifying Strengths, and Exploring Strengths). The second phase involved participants engaging in intensive practice over the following week based on self-formulated strategies of strengths use, with daily reviews to ensure the achievement of strengths use goals. Detailed information on the core activities of the strengths-based cognitive-behavioral intervention is provided in the supplementary materials.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4 Results\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4.1 Preliminary Analyses\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo examine the homogeneity of demographic information and baseline levels between the intervention group and the control group, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was first conducted with gender, age, and scores of strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving at the pre-test (T0) as dependent variables, and group as the independent variable. The results showed that the overall group effect was not significant: \u003cem\u003eWilks\u0026rsquo; Lambda\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.968, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(5, 80)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.523, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.758, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.032. Subsequently, univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on age and the scores of strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving at T0 between the two groups, and a chi-square test was conducted on the gender distribution across groups. The results indicated no significant group differences in these variables (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e for details). The above findings demonstrate that the two groups were homogeneous in terms of demographic information and baseline levels.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparison of Demographic Information and Baseline Levels\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntervention group (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;43)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eControl group (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;43)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 84)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender \u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22/21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23/20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.047\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.829\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.81\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.59\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.93\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.965\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.329\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.011\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrength use T0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.05\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.85\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.12\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.75\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.177\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.675\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.002\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-efficacy T0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.39\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.37\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.40\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.015\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.902\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThriving T0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.54\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.48\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.44\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.57\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.736\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.393\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.009\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"8\"\u003e\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e The corresponding values for the gender variable are the number of cases and chi-square test results.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4.2 Testing the Immediate Effects of the Strengths Intervention\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA 2 (Group: Intervention Group, Control Group) \u0026times; 2 (Time: Pre-test T0, Post-test T1) repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted for strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving respectively. The results showed that the main effects of group and time for all three indicators were not significant (\u003cem\u003eps\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05), while the group \u0026times; time interaction effects were all significant: for strengths use, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 84)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12.60, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.13; for self-efficacy, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 84)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11.04, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.12; and for thriving, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 84)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.01, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.010, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.08. These findings indicate that the impact of the intervention on the three indicators varied over time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurther simple effects analysis results (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) revealed the following: Regarding strengths use, the post-test score of the intervention group was significantly higher than the pre-test score (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 84)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.78, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.11), while there was no significant difference in the control group\u0026rsquo;s scores before and after the intervention (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 84)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.02, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.086, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.04). Additionally, after the intervention, the intervention group\u0026rsquo; s score was significantly higher than that of the control group (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 84)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.33, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.005, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.09), demonstrating that the intervention effectively improved senior high school students\u0026rsquo; strengths use. For self-efficacy, the post-test score of the intervention group was significantly higher than the pre-test score (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 84)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.24, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.136), whereas the control group exhibited no significant pre-post difference (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 84)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.12, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.292, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.01). After the intervention, the intervention group\u0026rsquo; s score was significantly higher than that of the control group (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 84)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.97, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.006, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.09), indicating that the strengths intervention significantly enhanced senior high school students\u0026rsquo; self-efficacy. With respect to thriving, the intervention group\u0026rsquo; s post-test score was significantly higher than the pre-test score (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 84)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.51, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.037, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05), while the control group showed no significant pre-post difference (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 84)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.63, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.109, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.03). Furthermore, after the intervention, the intervention group\u0026rsquo; s score was significantly higher than that of the control group (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 84)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.77, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.002, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.10), suggesting that the strengths intervention significantly improved senior high school students\u0026rsquo; thriving.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, after the intervention, the intervention group showed significant improvements in all three indicators (strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving) compared to the pre-test, while the control group remained relatively stable over time. Meanwhile, the intervention group significantly outperformed the control group in the post-test. These results indicate that the strengths-based cognitive-behavioral intervention has good immediate promotional effects in the short term.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4.3 Testing the Sustained Effects of the Intervention\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA 2 (Group: Intervention Group, Control Group) \u0026times; 3 (Time: Pre-test T0, Post-test T1, Follow-up Test T2) repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted for strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving respectively. The results showed that the main effects of group and time for all three indicators were not significant (\u003cem\u003eps\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05), while the group \u0026times; time interaction effects were all significant: for strengths use, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 168)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.58, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.09; for self-efficacy, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 168)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.83, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.004, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.07; and for thriving, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 168)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.06, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.007, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.06.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurther simple effects analysis results (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e) revealed the following: Regarding strengths use scores, the intervention group\u0026rsquo; s post-test score (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.45, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.62) and follow-up test score (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.48, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.68) were significantly higher than the pre-test score (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.05, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.85; \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = -3.295, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001; \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = -3.26, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.002). However, there was no significant difference between the post-test and follow-up test scores (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = -0.36, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.722). Additionally, the follow-up test results indicated that the intervention group\u0026rsquo;s score was significantly higher than that of the control group (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 168)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.37, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.013, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.07). For self-efficacy scores, the intervention group\u0026rsquo; s post-test score (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.57, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.35) and follow-up test score (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.59, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.38) were significantly higher than the pre-test score (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.39, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.37; \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = -3.68, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001; \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = -2.99, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.004). No significant difference was observed between the post-test and follow-up test scores (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = -0.31, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.75), and the follow-up test results showed that the intervention group\u0026rsquo; s score was significantly higher than that of the control group (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 168)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.82, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.031, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05). With respect to thriving scores, the intervention group\u0026rsquo; s post-test score (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.71, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.56) and follow-up test score (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.75, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.51) were significantly higher than the pre-test score (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.54, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.48; \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = -2.11, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.037; \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = -2.33, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.022). There was no significant difference between the post-test and follow-up test scores (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = -0.54, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.593), and the follow-up test results demonstrated that the intervention group\u0026rsquo; s score was significantly higher than that of the control group (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 168)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.28, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.002, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.11).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, one month after the intervention, the intervention group still outperformed the control group in all three indicators (strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving), and there was no significant difference from the scores immediately after the intervention. These results indicate that the strengths-based cognitive intervention has good sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDifference analysis of pretest, posttest and follow-up test\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"9\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eT0 - T1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eT0 - T1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eT1 - T2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrength use\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;3.295\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;3.263\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.002\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.360\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.722\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-efficacy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;3.680\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;2.985\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.314\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.748\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThriving\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;2.114\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.037\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;2.330\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.022\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.536\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.593\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"9\"\u003ePretest T0, Post-test T1, Follow-up Test T2\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. General Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eBased on an integrated framework of Self-Determination Theory and Resources Conservation Theory, this study took senior high school students as the research object and verified the dynamic relationship and intervention mechanism among strengths use, self-efficacy and thriving through a diary study and a controlled experiment. The following discussion elaborates on the theoretical contributions and practical implications of this study in detail.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 Theoretical Contributions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the theoretical level, this study expands and deepens the existing research on strengths use and thriving mainly in three aspects: research context and subjects, daily dynamic mechanism and multilevel mediation, and the action path of strengths intervention. The specific contents are as follows:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirstly, this study extends the relationship that strengths use can positively predict thriving from the workplace to the group of Chinese senior high school students, enriching its positive effects on adolescents\u0026rsquo; growth and development. Previous studies on strengths use and thriving have mainly focused on corporate employees, emphasizing their roles in work engagement, occupational well-being and organizational performance (Spreitzer \u0026amp; Porath, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Bakker \u0026amp; van Woerkom, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Miglianico et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Although existing studies have shown that strengths use is closely associated with well-being and adaptive outcomes at different life stages (Harzer \u0026amp; Ruch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Proctor et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), empirical tests targeting adolescents, especially senior high school students under high academic pressure, remain relatively insufficient (Wood et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Duan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). This study took Chinese senior high school students as the research object and systematically examined the relationship between strengths use and thriving in the realistic educational context where the pressure of the College Entrance Examination and developmental tasks coexist. The results showed that strengths use is not only closely related to thriving in the workplace (Mahomed \u0026amp; Rothmann, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Moore et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Rothmann \u0026amp; Mahomed, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), but also exhibits a stable positive effect in the group of senior high school students. This finding supports the view from the perspective of developmental psychology that strengths use serves as a key cross-context and cross-developmental stage positive resource (Peterson \u0026amp; Seligman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Wagner et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) that can promote students\u0026rsquo; good adaptation and healthy development. Meanwhile, this study also responds to the theoretical proposition of positive education that advocates cultivating students\u0026rsquo; strengths and positive qualities in the school system (Niemiec, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Seligman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), providing direct evidence for the applicability of strength theory in the middle school education stage. Therefore, this study not only expands the scope of existing research in terms of research objects and contexts, but also indicates that strengths use holds important value for adolescents\u0026rsquo; psychological adaptation and development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecondly, a critical finding of this study is that self-efficacy mediates the predictive effect of strengths use on thriving only at the within-person level, while this mediating path is not significant at the between-person level. Previous studies on the relationships among strengths use, self-efficacy and thriving mostly relied on cross-sectional or long-interval longitudinal designs, mainly revealing the stable differences and between-person effects among variables (Ding \u0026amp; Chu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Rothmann \u0026amp; Mahomed, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Kleine et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). However, according to the Resources Conservation Theory (Hobfoll, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e) and the Job-Resources Dynamic Model (Bakker \u0026amp; Demerouti, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), personal resources and the related positive psychological states exhibit significant situational volatility and within-day dynamic characteristics. Therefore, cross-sectional studies are difficult to distinguish between within-person fluctuation effects and between-person difference effects, and are prone to confusing the levels of action (Bolger \u0026amp; Laurenceau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). By adopting a 5-day diary design and a 1-1-1 multilevel mediation model, this study decomposed daily strengths use, self-efficacy and thriving into the within-person and between-person levels for testing, making up for the deficiencies of previous cross-sectional studies. The results found that the mediating role of self-efficacy is mainly reflected at the within-person level, but not significant at the between-person level. On the one hand, it verifies the view of van Woerkom, Oerlemans and Bakker (2016) that self-efficacy is an important mediating mechanism in the relationship between strengths use and various positive outcomes; on the other hand, it reveals the daily resource activation path of the mechanism of action of strengths use, supporting the immediate constructive effect of successful experiences on self-efficacy (Bandura, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). One possible explanation for the unvalidated mediating role at the between-person level is that self-efficacy requires evaluation of various events in different environments (Schwarzer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e) and is easily changed by the influence of external environments or other events (Zhang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). When affected by decisive factors such as situational factors (Huber et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), self-efficacy can only immediately enhance the positive effect of strengths use on thriving, and thus the role of self-efficacy is not obvious for some individuals. This explanation still needs to be further tested in future research by introducing different contexts and using a longer time span. In addition, factors such as hierarchical variance structure, sample homogeneity, and diary study measurement design may also affect the test power of the between-person mediating effect (Preacher, Zyphur, \u0026amp; Zhang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Nezlek, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). In short, by distinguishing the different mechanisms of action at the within-person and between-person levels through a longitudinal design, this study responds methodologically to the measurement demand of positive psychological variables from state to situation (Zhang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Brown et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), making the research conclusions more in line with the real psychological fluctuations and resource operation processes of adolescents in their daily study and life.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, this study adopted a strengths-based cognitive-behavioral intervention technology that integrates strengths intervention measures and cognitive behavioral therapy, and found that it can effectively improve senior high school students\u0026rsquo; strengths use, self-efficacy and thriving. Although existing studies have supported the association between strengths use and positive outcomes such as well-being and engagement through correlational and longitudinal data (Dubreuil et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Bakker \u0026amp; van Woerkom, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), intervention studies with thriving as the core outcome variable are relatively scarce (Gander et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Ruch et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Meanwhile, whether the effects of strengths intervention have good sustainability still needs further empirical testing. The core content of strengths intervention lies in the identification and use of one\u0026rsquo; s own strengths, and the core content of cognitive behavioral therapy lies in cognitive restructuring, goal setting and so on. This study implemented a strengths-based cognitive-behavioral intervention through a randomized controlled design, combining strengths awareness-strengths identification-strengths application with cognitive-behavioral training (Niemiec, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Gatchel \u0026amp; Rollings, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). The results showed that the intervention not only significantly improved senior high school students\u0026rsquo; level of strengths use, but also simultaneously enhanced their self-efficacy and thriving, and the effects remained stable after one month. On the one hand, this result verifies the clinical research finding that self-efficacy can mediate the positive effects of cognitive therapy intervention (Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e); on the other hand, it indicates that the continuous use of their own strengths by the intervention subjects in daily life after the intervention is the key factor for the intervention to produce effects (Seligman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), which is also consistent with the findings of the diary study: the covariation between strengths use and thriving at the daily level, partially mediated by self-efficacy, shows that the maintenance of the changes initiated by the intervention depends on individuals\u0026rsquo; continuous use of strengths and accumulation of resources in daily life. When individuals\u0026rsquo; strengths are exerted, the increase in experience and the acquisition of psychological resources can further satisfy their basic psychological needs, and individuals can generate a stronger sense of self-efficacy and thriving. In short, this study makes up for the deficiencies of previous studies in intervention technology and the test of sustainable effects (Gander et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Duan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), indicates that strengths intervention can improve personal health or produce other positive outcomes (Ghielen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Niemiec, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), and provides preliminary evidence for the causal chain among strengths use, self-efficacy and thriving.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo sum up, this study has three main theoretical contributions: First, it extends the research context of the strengths use-thriving relationship from the adult workplace to the group of Chinese senior high school students, highlighting the significance of strengths use for adolescents\u0026rsquo; positive development. Second, it adopts a diary study and multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM) to reveal the daily dynamic mechanism of self-efficacy mediating the relationship between strengths use and thriving at the within-person level, supplementing the deficiencies of previous cross-sectional studies. Third, it provides causal evidence for strengths use promoting thriving through a strengths-based cognitive-behavioral intervention, and suggests that the maintenance of intervention effects depends on individuals\u0026rsquo; continuous daily use of strengths.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Practical Inspiration\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, strengths-based cognitive-behavioral intervention program developed in this study provides schools with a directly applicable intervention tool. Building on existing strengths-based intervention techniques, this program systematically integrates core elements of cognitive-behavioral therapy, such as cognitive restructuring, goal setting, and pleasant activities arranging, and implements the intervention through structured group counseling activities and daily behavior consolidation. The results indicate that the program can significantly enhance high school students\u0026rsquo; strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving in the short term, which is consistent with the result conclusions of Duan et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), and further validate the effectiveness of strengths-based intervention. Moreover, the program is characterized by its straightforward implementation form, relatively controllable time costs, and clear operational procedures, making it suitable for promotion by school psychologists or head teachers in mental health courses, thematic class meetings, or counseling room activities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, this study results support that school mental health practices should gradually shift from a \u0026ldquo;problem-fixing\u0026rdquo; approach to a \u0026ldquo;strengths-cultivating\u0026rdquo; approach. Students are encouraged to identify and use their personal strengths in daily learning and life to enhance their self-efficacy and psychological resilience. In Study 2, although the control group did not show significant differences in the scores of strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving before and after the start of the semester, a slight declining trend from pre-test to post-test was observed overall, while the intervention group showed an upward trend during the same period. This pattern suggests that after the beginning of the senior year of high school, with accelerated learning pace and increased academic demands, students\u0026rsquo; positive psychological functioning may face a risk of decline, but systematic strengths training may mitigate the negative impact of such fluctuations to a certain extent. This study did not directly measure contextual variables such as academic stress and classroom atmosphere, and the reasons behind the downward trend still need to be further examined in future research. Building on this, the intervention adopted in this study can be regarded as a positive psychological intervention pathway centered on strengths training while also addressing emotional and cognitive regulation. It is expected that on the basis of improving well-being, reducing stress, and lowering neuroticism levels as confirmed by existing research (Gander et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Niemiec, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), it can further enhance high school students\u0026rsquo; positive psychological functionings such as self-efficacy and thriving by improving their strengths use level.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, this study provides practical evidence for promoting personalized mental health education that teaches students in accordance with their aptitude. Niemiec (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) pointed out that how students use their strengths in the educational environment will affect their thriving through matching with specific situations. This study finds that self-efficacy can immediately enhance the promotive effect of strengths use on thriving at the intra-individual level. This implies that when students use their personal strengths more frequently in daily learning and life, their needs for autonomy and competence can be better fulfilled, thereby fostering a sense of control and confidence in future tasks and environmental requirements (Moore et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) and showing higher level of thriving. However, this mediating effect is not consistent across all students, which may be related to factors such as their growth environment, cognitive style, and past experiences (Niemiec, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Meanwhile, the key to sustaining intervention effects lies in students continuously use their strengths in daily life (Seligman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Recent research also indicates that the habit of strengths use developed after intervention helps to improve individual abilities and well-being (Gander et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, in actual teaching situations, school mental health education should introduce tools such as strengths assessment and strengths profiling on the basis of the general strengths intervention program,, formulate differentiated goals and practice tasks in combination with students\u0026rsquo; individual characteristics and developmental needs. This approach can fully mobilize students\u0026rsquo; subjective initiative and cultivate strengths use habits, thereby maximizing the positive effect of strengths use on thriving and overall mental health.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec30\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 Research Limitations and Future Directions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, the representativeness of the research sample needs to be expanded. This study took high school students from a specific middle school in Shaanxi Province as subjects, the single source of the sample may limit the generalizability of the research results to adolescent groups in other regions or different types of schools. Future research should consider the influence of group characteristics (such as regions, school types, and grade levels) on the results, and try to he participant pool across diverse regions, educational systems, and school types to further test the generalizability of the conclusions. In addition, systematic comparisons of the relationship between strengths use and thriving across different developmental stages (such as junior high school, senior high school, and university) could provide more targeted evidence for stage-specific mental health education initiatives. It should be noted that his study was conducted within the specific context of China\u0026rsquo; s College Entrance Examination system and school management culture, the relationship between strengths use and thriving may be affected by macro-level factors such as cultural values and examination systems. Future research could further examine the contextual applicability of the findings through cross-regional or cross-cultural comparative studies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, the research design and measurement methods can be further refined. Study 1 followed the relevant research paradigm (Hatano et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) by collecting data using a 5-day diary approach, from the perspective of dynamic processes,more frequent measurements over a longer time span could more precisely capture subtle changes in behaviors or states over time (Luo \u0026amp; Liu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, future studies could consider extending the diary research cycle or increasing the measurement frequency incorporating with more flexible time-interval designs to more deeply reveal the dynamic correlation and lag effect among strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving. The intervention in Study 2 is a general design, which is easy to operate and promote, but personalized interventions may better align with students\u0026rsquo; personal characteristics and needs (Ruch et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Future research can design differentiated intervention programs based on students\u0026rsquo; strengths types, self-efficacy levels, psychological risk status, and other characteristics, and compare the intervention effects and cost-effectiveness of different programs. In addition, all data in this study were collected through participants\u0026rsquo; self-reports, which may be subject to common method bias and social desirability bias. In the future, studies could introduce multi-source data collection methods, such as teacher evaluations, peer reports, behavioral observations, or objective indicators. Combining longitudinal tracking and experimental manipulations would also help enhance the objectivity of the findings and the reliability of causal inference.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, the research content can be further deepened and expanded at the theoretical and result levels. Based on self-determination theory, this study proposes that strengths use generates multiple positive outcomes by satisfying personal basic psychological needs. However, the relationships between the three psychological needs and different types of outcomes may be different, which may lead to distinct motivational benefits (Van den Broeck et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). This suggests that when strengths use fulfills different psychological needs, it may point to different positive outcome patterns, which need to be distinguished and validated in future research. On the other hand, the vast majority of existing strengths-based intervention studies has predominantly focused on outcomes at the subjective experience level, but little is known about the effectiveness of the intervention in stimulating specific positive behavioral outcomes (Bates-Krakoff et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Future research can be further extended to the behavioral domains such as academic performance and interpersonal interaction behaviors, to more comprehensively present the positive role of strengths use and provide multi-dimensional support for the practical value of strengths-based education. At the same time, this study focuses on the mediating role of self-efficacy but it didn\u0026rsquo;t incorporate other potential mechanism variables. In the future, on the basis of integrating self-determination theory and resources conservation theory, the mediating effect of variables such as core self-evaluation, perceived social support, and positive emotions, can be further examined to construct a more comprehensive and hierarchical mechanism model. Combined with multi-level analysis methods and complex model testing, the understanding of the chain from strengths use to psychological resources to thriving can be deepened.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eBased on the current situation and actual needs of school mental health education, this study explores how strengths use and its intervention influence high school students\u0026rsquo; thriving by integrating self-determination theory and resources conservation theory. The following conclusions are drawn:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(1) In the daily life of high school students, daily strengths use can positively affect their daily thriving, and daily strengths use can influence their daily psychological thriving through the mediating role of daily self-efficacy at the within-person level.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(2) The strengths-based cognitive-behavioral intervention demonstrates both immediate and sustained positive effects on high school students, significantly enhancing their levels of strengths use, self-efficacy, and thriving after the intervention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCombining the results of the two studies, this study concludes that strengths use and its intervention promote high school students\u0026rsquo; thriving by elevating their level of self-efficacy.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp; We thank everyone who participated in this study. We thank the editor and reviewers for the positive and constructive comments regarding our paper.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflict of Interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp; The authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp; This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the ethics committee on human research of XXX University.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformed Consent\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp; Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAllan, B. A., \u0026amp; Duffy, R. D. (2014). Examining moderators of signature strengths use and well-being: Calling and signature strengths level. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Happiness Studies, 15\u003c/em\u003e, 323\u0026ndash;337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9424-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArsenio, W. F., \u0026amp; Loria, S. (2014). Coping with negative emotions: Connections with adolescents\u0026rsquo; academic performance and stress. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Genetic Psychology, 175\u003c/em\u003e(1-2), 76\u0026ndash;90. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2013.806293\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBakker, A. B., \u0026amp; Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands\u0026ndash;resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273\u0026ndash;285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBakker, A. B., \u0026amp; van Woerkom, M. (2018). Strengths use in organizations: A positive approach of occupational health. \u003cem\u003eCanadian Psychology / Psychologie Canadienne,\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e59\u003c/em\u003e(1), 38\u0026ndash;46. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000120\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. A\u003cem\u003emerican psychologist, 37\u003c/em\u003e(2), 122. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. \u003cem\u003eJournal of social and clinical psychology, 4\u003c/em\u003e(3), 359\u0026ndash;373. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBandura, A. (1988). Organizational application of social cognitive theory. \u003cem\u003eAustralian Journal of Management, 13\u003c/em\u003e(2), 275\u0026ndash;302. https://doi.org/10.1177/031289628801300210\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBandura, A. (1997). \u003cem\u003eSelf-Efficacy: The exercise of control. \u003c/em\u003eW. H. Freeman.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBates-Krakoff, J., Parente, A., McGrath, R., Rashid, T., \u0026amp; Niemiec, R. (2022). Are character strength-based positive interventions effective for eliciting positive behavioral outcomes? A meta-analytic review. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Wellbeing, 12\u003c/em\u003e(3), 56\u0026ndash;80. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v12i3.2111\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBiswas-Diener, R., Kashdan, T. B., \u0026amp; Minhas, G. (2011). A dynamic approach to psychological strength development and intervention. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Positive Psychology, 6\u003c/em\u003e(2), 106\u0026ndash;118. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2010.545429\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBolger, N., \u0026amp; Laurenceau, J. P. (2013). \u003cem\u003eIntensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experience sampling research.\u003c/em\u003e Guilford Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBotha, C., \u0026amp; Mostert, K. (2014). A structural model of job resources, organisational and individual strengths use and work engagement. \u003cem\u003eSA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 40\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;11. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC149660\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, D. J., Arnold, R., Fletcher, D., \u0026amp; Standage, M. (2017). Human thriving. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Psychologist, 22\u003c/em\u003e, 167\u0026ndash;179. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000294\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeci, E. L., \u0026amp; Ryan, R. M. (2000). The\u0026quot; what\u0026quot; and\u0026quot; why\u0026quot; of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. \u003cem\u003ePsychological inquiry, 11\u003c/em\u003e(4), 227\u0026ndash;268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDing, H., \u0026amp; Chu, X. (2020). Employee strengths use and thriving at work: The roles of self-efficacy and perceived humble leadership. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personnel Psychology, 19\u003c/em\u003e(4), 197\u0026ndash;205. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000262\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDouglass, R. P., \u0026amp; Duffy, R. D. (2015). Strengths use and life satisfaction: A moderated mediation approach.\u003cem\u003e Journal of Happiness Studies, 16\u003c/em\u003e, 619\u0026ndash;632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9525-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuan, W., \u0026amp; Bu, H. (2019). Randomized trial investigating of a single-session character-strength-based cognitive intervention on freshman\u0026rsquo;s adaptability. \u003cem\u003eResearch on Social Work Practice, 29\u003c/em\u003e(1), 82\u0026ndash;92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731517699525\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuan, W., Bu, H., Zhao, J., \u0026amp; Guo, X. (2019). Examining the mediating roles of strengths knowledge and strengths use in a 1-year single-session character strength-based cognitive intervention. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Happiness Studies, 20\u003c/em\u003e, 1673\u0026ndash;1688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-0014-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuan, W., Guan, Y., \u0026amp; Gan, F. (2016). Brief inventory of thriving: A comprehensive measurement of wellbeing. \u003cem\u003eChinese Sociological Dialogue, 1\u003c/em\u003e(1), 15\u0026ndash;31. https://doi.org/10.1177/2397200916665230\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuan, W., \u0026amp; Wang, Y. (2018). Latent profile analysis of the three-dimensional model of character strengths to distinguish at-strengths and at-risk populations. \u003cem\u003eQuality of Life Research, 27\u003c/em\u003e, 2983\u0026ndash;2990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1933-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDubreuil, P., Forest, J., \u0026amp; Courcy, F. (2014). From strengths use to work performance: The role of harmonious passion, subjective vitality, and concentration. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Positive Psychology, 9\u003c/em\u003e(4), 335\u0026ndash;349. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eErikson, E. H. (1959). \u003cem\u003eIdentity and the life cycle.\u003c/em\u003e International Universities Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFang, J., Zhang, M., \u0026amp; Qiu, H. (2010). Multilevel mediation effects based on hierarchical linear modeling. \u003cem\u003eAdvances in Psychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1329\u0026ndash;1338.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeeney, B. C., \u0026amp; Collins, N. L. (2015). A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and social psychology review, 19\u003c/em\u003e(2), 113\u0026ndash;147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314544222.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGander, F., Wagner, L., \u0026amp; Niemiec, R. M. (2024). Do character strengths-based interventions change character strengths? Two randomized controlled intervention studies. \u003cem\u003eCollabra: Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 10(1), 108604. \u003c/em\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.108604\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGatchel, R. J., \u0026amp; Rollings, K. H. (2008). Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with cognitive behavioral therapy. \u003cem\u003eThe Spine Journal, 8\u003c/em\u003e(1), 40\u0026ndash;44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2007.10.007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGhielen, S. T. S., van Woerkom, M., \u0026amp; Christina Meyers, M. (2018). Promoting positive outcomes through strengths interventions: A literature review. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Positive Psychology, 13\u003c/em\u003e(6), 573\u0026ndash;585. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2017.1365164\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGovindji, R., Linley, P. A. (2007). Strengths use, self-concordance and well-being: Implications for strengths coaching and coaching psychologists. \u003cem\u003eInternational Coaching Psychology Review, 2\u003c/em\u003e(2), 143\u0026ndash;153. https://doi.org/10.1177/2397200916665230\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHan, X., Li, Y., \u0026amp; Li, J. (2024). Having fun and thriving: The impact of fun human resource practices on employees\u0026rsquo; autonomous motivation and thriving at work. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management, 63\u003c/em\u003e(5), 813\u0026ndash;828. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22228\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarzer, C., \u0026amp; Ruch, W. (2013). The application of signature character strengths and positive experiences at work. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Happiness Studies, 14,\u003c/em\u003e 965\u0026ndash;983. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9364-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHatano, K., Luyckx, K., Hihara, S., Sugimura, K., \u0026amp; I. Becht, A. (2022). Daily identity processes and emotions in young adulthood: a five-day daily-diary method. \u003cem\u003eJournal of youth and adolescence, 51\u003c/em\u003e(9), 1815\u0026ndash;1828. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-022-01629-x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHildenbrand, K., Sacramento, C. A., \u0026amp; Binnewies, C. (2018). Transformational leadership and burnout: The role of thriving and followers\u0026rsquo; openness to experience. \u003cem\u003eJournal of occupational health psychology, 23\u003c/em\u003e(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000051\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. \u003cem\u003eAmerican psychologist, 44\u003c/em\u003e(3), 513. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHuber, A., Webb, D., \u0026amp; H\u0026ouml;fer, S. (2017). The German version of the strengths use scale: the relation of using individual strengths and well-being. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in psychology, 8\u003c/em\u003e, 243879. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00637\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKleine, A. K., Rudolph, C. W., \u0026amp; Zacher, H. (2019). Thriving at work: A meta‐analysis. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Organizational Behavior, 40\u003c/em\u003e(9-10), 973\u0026ndash;999. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2375\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKline, R. B. (2015). \u003cem\u003ePrinciples and practice of structural equation modeling\u003c/em\u003e (4th ed.). Guilford publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiao, H., \u0026amp; Yan, A. (2014). Effects, influencing factors, and mechanisms of emotional labor. \u003cem\u003eAdvances in Psychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(9), 1504\u0026ndash;1512. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2014.01504\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLin, X., Liu, Z., \u0026amp; Qiu, C. (2023). New approaches to school mental health education in the new era.\u003cem\u003e People\u0026rsquo; s Education\u003c/em\u003e, (12), 41\u0026ndash;45.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLuo, X., \u0026amp; Liu, H. (2024). Estimating test reliability in intensive longitudinal studies: A multilevel and dynamic perspective. \u003cem\u003eAdvances in Psychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(4), 700\u0026ndash;714. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2024.00700\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLuo, Y., Cui, Z., Zou, P., Wang, K., Lin, Z., He, J., \u0026amp; Wang, J.(2020). Mental health problems and associated factors inChinese high school students in Henan province: A cross-sectional study. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of EnvironmentalResearch and Public Health, 17\u003c/em\u003e(16), 5944. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165944\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaddux, J. E. (2016). Self-efficacy. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), In \u003cem\u003eInterpersonal and intrapersonal expectancies\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 41\u0026ndash;46). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMahomed, F. E., \u0026amp; Rothmann, S. (2020). Strength use, training and development, thriving, and intention to leave: the mediating effects of psychological need satisfaction. \u003cem\u003eSouth African Journal of Psychology, 50\u003c/em\u003e(1), 24\u0026ndash;38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081246319849030\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMansour, S., \u0026amp; Tremblay, D. G. (2018). The mediating role of work engagement between psychosocial safety climate and organisational citizenship behaviours: a study in the nursing and health sector in Quebec. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 18\u003c/em\u003e, 51\u0026ndash;71. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJHRDM.2018.092287\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarcionetti, J., \u0026amp; Rossier, J. (2021). A longitudinal study of relations among adolescents\u0026rsquo; self-esteem, general self-efficacy, career adaptability, and life satisfaction. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Career Development, 48\u003c/em\u003e(4), 475\u0026ndash;490. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845319861691\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMatsuo, M. (2020). The role of work authenticity in linking strengths use to career satisfaction and proactive behavior: a two-wave study. \u003cem\u003eCareer Development International\u003c/em\u003e, 25(6), 617\u0026ndash;630. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-01-2020-0015\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiglianico, M., Dubreuil, P., Miquelon, P., Bakker, A. B., \u0026amp; Martin-Krumm, C. (2020). Strength use in the workplace: A literature review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Happiness Studies, 21\u003c/em\u003e, 737\u0026ndash;764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00095-w\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoore, H. L., Bakker, A. B., \u0026amp; van Mierlo, H. (2022). Using strengths and thriving at work: The role of colleague strengths recognition and organizational context. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 31\u003c/em\u003e(2), 260\u0026ndash;272. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2021.1952990\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoore, H. L., Bakker, A. B., van Mierlo, H., \u0026amp; van Woerkom, M. (2024). Daily strengths use and work performance: A self‐determination perspective. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e, 97(1), \u003c/em\u003e190\u0026ndash;208. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12466\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNezlek, J. B. (2012). Multilevel modeling analyses of diary-style data. \u003cem\u003eHandbook of research methods for studying daily life, 676\u003c/em\u003e, 357\u0026ndash;383.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNiemiec, R. M. (2014). \u003cem\u003eMindfulness and character strengths: A practical guide to flourishing.\u003c/em\u003e Boston, MA: Hogrefe Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNiemiec, R. M. (2020). Six functions of character strengths for thriving at times of adversity and opportunity: A theoretical perspective. \u003cem\u003eApplied Research in Quality of Life, 15\u003c/em\u003e, 551\u0026ndash;572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-018-9692-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePap, Z., V\u0026icirc;rgă, D., \u0026amp; Lupșa, D. (2022). Bringing our best selves to work: Proactive vitality management and strengths use predicting daily engagement in interaction. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology, 13,\u003c/em\u003e 1015397. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1015397\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePaterson, T. A., Luthans, F., \u0026amp; Jeung, W. (2014). Thriving at work: Impact of psychological capital and supervisor support. Journal of organizational behavior, 35(3), 434\u0026ndash;446. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1907\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePeterson, C., \u0026amp; Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). \u003cem\u003eCharacter strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification.\u003c/em\u003e Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePorath, C., Spreitzer, G., Gibson, C., \u0026amp; Garnett, F. G. (2012). Thriving at work: Toward its measurement, construct validation, and theoretical refinement. \u003cem\u003eJournal of organizational behavior, 33\u003c/em\u003e(2), 250\u0026ndash;275. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.756\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePreacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., \u0026amp; Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209\u0026ndash;233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020141\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eProctor, C., Maltby, J., \u0026amp; Linley, P. A. (2011). Strengths use as a predictor of well-being and health-related quality of life. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Happiness Studies, 12\u003c/em\u003e, 153\u0026ndash;169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9181-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRobertson, I. T., Cooper, C. L., \u0026amp; Johnson, S. (2011). \u003cem\u003eWell-being: Productivity and happiness at work\u003c/em\u003e . Palgrave Macmillan.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRothmann, S., \u0026amp; Mahomed, F. E. (2019). Strengths use, deficit correction, thriving and performance of academics at universities of technology. \u003cem\u003eSA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 45\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;10. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC-15787e1c48\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRuch, W., Niemiec, R. M., McGrath, R. E., Gander, F., \u0026amp; Proyer, R. T. (2020). Character strengths-based interventions: Open questions and ideas for future research. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Positive Psychology, 15\u003c/em\u003e(5), 680\u0026ndash;684. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2020.1789700\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchwarzer, R., B\u0026auml;\u0026szlig;ler, J., Kwiatek, P., Schr\u0026ouml;der, K., \u0026amp; Zhang, J. X. (1997). The assessment of optimistic self‐beliefs: comparison of the German, Spanish, and Chinese versions of the general self‐efficacy scale. \u003cem\u003eApplied psychology, 46\u003c/em\u003e(1), 69\u0026ndash;88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01096.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeligman, M. E. P., Ernst, R. M., Gillham, J., Reivich, K., \u0026amp; Linkins, M. (2009). Positive education: Positive psychology and classroom interventions. \u003cem\u003eOxford Review of Education, 35\u003c/em\u003e(3), 293\u0026ndash;311. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980902934563\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeligman, M. E. p., Steen, T. A., Park, N., \u0026amp; Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: empirical validation of interventions. \u003cem\u003eThe American psychologist, 60\u003c/em\u003e(5), 410\u0026ndash;421. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.410\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., \u0026amp; Grant, A. M. (2005). A socially embedded model of thriving at work. \u003cem\u003eOrganization science, 16\u003c/em\u003e(5), 537\u0026ndash;549. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0153\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpreitzer, G. M., \u0026amp; Porath, C. (2014). Self-determination as a nutriment for thriving: Building an integrative model of human growth at work. \u003cem\u003eThe Oxford handbook of work engagement, motivation, and self-determination theory\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 245\u0026ndash;258). Oxford University Press. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSu, R., Tay, L., \u0026amp; Diener, E. (2014). The development and validation of the Comprehensive Inventory of Thriving (CIT) and the Brief Inventory of Thriving (BIT). \u003cem\u003eApplied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 6\u003c/em\u003e(3), 251\u0026ndash;279. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12027\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTaylor, E. C., Livingston, L. A., Clutterbuck, R. A., Callan, M. J., \u0026amp; Shah, P. (2023). Psychological strengths and well-being: Strengths use predicts quality of life, well-being and mental health in autism.\u003cem\u003e Autism, 27(6), \u003c/em\u003e1826\u0026ndash;1839. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613221146440\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., Soenens, B., \u0026amp; Lens, W. (2010). Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: Construction and initial validation of the Work‐related Basic Need Satisfaction scale. \u003cem\u003eJournal of occupational and organizational psychology, 83\u003c/em\u003e(4), 981\u0026ndash;1002. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X481382\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan Woerkom, M., Mostert, K., Els, C., Bakker, A. B., De Beer, L., \u0026amp; Rothmann Jr, S. (2016). Strengths use and deficit correction in organizations: Development and validation of a questionnaire. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25\u003c/em\u003e(6), 960\u0026ndash;975. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1193010\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVeyis, F., Se\u0026ccedil;er, İ., \u0026amp; Ulas, S. (2019). An investigation of the mediator role of school burnout between academic stress and academic motivation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Curriculum and Teaching, 8\u003c/em\u003e(4), 46\u0026ndash;53. https://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v8n4p46\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWagner, L., Gander, F., Proyer, R. T., \u0026amp; Ruch, W. (2020). Character strengths and PERMA: Investigating the relationships of character strengths with a multidimensional framework of well-being. \u003cem\u003eApplied Research in Quality of Life, 15\u003c/em\u003e, 307\u0026ndash;328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-018-9695-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, C., Hu, Z., \u0026amp; Liu, Y. (2001). Reliability and validity of the general self-efficacy scale. \u003cem\u003eChinese Journal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, (1), 37\u0026ndash;40.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, Y., Mao, F., Peng, Y., Guo, Z., Jiang, S., Wang, S., \u0026amp; Wang, X. (2024). Effects and mechanisms of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy on anxiety, self-efficacy, and coping styles among medical students. \u003cem\u003eChinese Journal of Health Psychology., 32\u003c/em\u003e (05), 781\u0026ndash;787. https://doi.org/10.13342/j.cnki.cjhp.2024.05.026\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Kashdan, T. B., \u0026amp; Hurling, R. (2011). Using personal and psychological strengths leads to increases in well-being over time: A longitudinal study and the development of the strengths use questionnaire. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences, 50\u003c/em\u003e, 15\u0026ndash;19. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PAID.2010.08.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYe, N., Wang, L., Zhang, L., \u0026amp; Sun, X. (2023). The mediating role of self-control between physical activity and sleep quality among college students: Evidence from a diary study. \u003cem\u003eChinese Journal of Applied Psychology, 29\u003c/em\u003e (01), 89\u0026ndash;96. https://doi.org/10.20058/j.cnki.cjap.022015\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYuan, Q. (2022). Academic stress predicts negative emotions and academic performances: The role of mindset in moderation process. In\u003cem\u003e Proceedings of the 2022 3rd International Conference on Mental Health, Education and Human Development (MHEHD 2022) \u003c/em\u003e(pp. 91\u0026minus;98). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.220704.016\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, W., Gao, W., \u0026amp; Liu, X. (2022). Does attending elite colleges matter in the relationship between self-esteem and general self-efficacy of students in China? \u003cem\u003eHeliyon, 8\u003c/em\u003e(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09723\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Strengths use, Self-efficacy, Thriving, Strengths-based cognitive behavioral intervention, Diary method","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9099374/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9099374/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eBased on the Resources Conservation Theory and Self-Determination Theory, this study explored how strengths use influences thriving among high school students through a diary study and an intervention study. Study 1 adopted a 5-day diary survey (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 146, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 17.15, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.72; 54.79% males) and indicated that daily strengths use positively predicted daily thriving, with self-efficacy mediating this relationship at the within-person level. Study 2 used a randomized controlled design to test a one-week strengths-based cognitive-behavioral intervention. The results showed that compared with the control group (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 43, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 16.93, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.51; 53.49% males), the intervention group (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 43, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 16.81, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.59; 51.16% males) exhibited a significant increase in strengths use, self-efficacy and thriving, and the intervention effects demonstrated favorable immediacy and sustainability. This study verified the mediating mechanism of self-efficacy between strengths use and thriving, and identified the important value of strengths-based cognitive-behavioral intervention for students’ growth and development.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Effect of strengths use on thriving and its intervention among high school students","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-29 09:13:42","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9099374/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"0f01a9e9-fb5f-410f-a513-3b0f2ee94040","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 29th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"14506480338940477160904845910656658","date":"2026-05-04T19:12:47+00:00","index":21,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"71200133939022292564500146647492630839","date":"2026-04-30T07:47:18+00:00","index":16,"fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-29T09:13:42+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-29 09:13:42","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9099374","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9099374","identity":"rs-9099374","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}