Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science (JCBS)
Volume 42, October 2026
Authors
Salima Barkat Ali, Joseph Ciarrochi, Cristóbal Hernández, Aqsa Mansoor, Steven C. Hayes, Clarissa Ong, & Baljinder K. Sahdra
Key Findings
- Distress fell and curiosity rose over the daily-tracking period.
- i-ARIMAX models showed wide individual variation in strength–well-being links.
- Group means masked differences between responders and nonresponders.
- Individual daily strength-distress links distinguished who benefited most from monitoring.
- Findings support precision, person-centered methods in behavioral science.
Abstract
Strengths-based research consistently shows positive group-level associations between strength use and well-being. However, whether these associations hold uniformly within individuals remains untested. This study examined whether daily strength and well-being links are ergodic, meaning the pattern observed at the group level characterizes each individual's daily experience. Two hundred and thirty-five Pakistani undergraduates (Mage = 20.72, SD = 1.70; 77 women, 157 men, one missing) completed up to 21 daily diaries (M = 17) and pre–post assessments. Individual-level autoregressive integrated moving average models with exogenous predictors (i-ARIMAX) were estimated for each participant and then meta-analyzed. At the group level, experience sampling may have functioned as a light-touch intervention: participants increased their daily enactment of strengths and, on average, reported reductions in negative affect from the pre-test to the post-test. Group-level analyses also suggested that greater daily strength use predicted higher positive outcomes such as vitality, meaning, and life satisfaction, with smaller and often nonsignificant effects on negative affect. However, individual-level analyses revealed a different picture: the size and even the direction of daily strength–distress links varied substantially across participants. Clustering analysis showed that only a subset of students (responders) translated increased strength use into reduced distress, whereas others (nonresponders) did not. i-ARIMAX slopes distinguished these groups, suggesting that daily dynamics may help identify who is most likely to benefit. These findings illustrate how group averages can mask unique individual experiences, underscoring the potential value of person-centered approaches that tailor strengths-based interventions.