Self-Selection of Positive Interventions: Notes on article by Silberman

(May 5, 2009)

By Ryan M. Niemiec, Psy.D
Education Director, VIA Institute on Character
Follow Ryan on Twitter

Study:  Silberman, J. (2007). Positive intervention self-selection: Developing models of what works for whom. International Coaching Psychology Review, 2(1), 70-77.

Overview of findings:  This unique, preliminary study is intended to build off Seligman et al.’s (2005) article on positive interventions by examining whether individuals can adequately self-select positive interventions. Silberman encourages the reader to not assume that people accurately predict what they will benefit from most.

Those who self-select interventions (no help from a coach or therapist) are often taking a “test-drive approach” hoping that an early positive experience will lead to long-term benefits. However, after the typical short-term boost that most people get when trying something new, the end result might be a sense of time wasted, surface engagement of several activities involving quantity rather than quality, or attrition from positive interventions altogether. When self-selection of interventions does work for an individual, this can boost autonomy, self-efficacy, psychological well-being, etc.

This study:  72 undergrads completed a depression scale and the AH inventory (24 items; updated version of the Steen Happiness Inventory). Participants were matched in dyads based on depression scores and then one member within each dyad was randomly selected to be in the choice group and the other dyad member was assigned to the yoked group. The choice group members selected one of four positive interventions they expected would bring the most pleasure, engagement, or meaning to their life; the yoked group was then simply assigned that same intervention (no choice). The interventions the choice group could choose from were Three Good Things, Using Your Signature Strengths, Gratitude Visit, and You at Your Best. If there is greater benefit in self-selecting a positive intervention then it is expected that the choice group would benefit more than the yoked group.

Results: Being in the choice group did not have a significant effect on depression or happiness levels at 1 or 2 weeks. Said another way, interventions were equally efficacious regardless of which group the participant was in; both groups experienced significantly increased happiness and decreased depression regardless of the intervention. This short-term study reveals that self-selection does not add anything to the outcome, and at the same time, all interventions worked - which notes that random selection of evidence-based interventions may be beneficial.

Limitations: This was a relatively small sample and participant selection led to fewer people in certain groups (e.g., there were only 10 participants in the Using Signature Strengths group). Also, two weeks is a short period of time (especially compared with Seligman et al’s intervention time period of six months).  Population demographics were limited. Another consideration is that people might be better at choosing good interventions from bad ones as opposed to “good from better” interventions as was the case with this study.

What's next: The article generates more questions than answers, but it can open a new line of questioning and thinking for the practitioner. It might be that having a coach or therapist support/guide/suggest interventions is most optimal. A coach takes into account many factors when selecting an intervention – cognitive, emotional, behavioral patterns; environment/context; client’s presenting issues; SES; goals; etc.