Skip to Main Content

Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology
2024. Vol. 13, no. 4, 74–85
doi:10.17759/jmfp.2024130407
ISSN: 2304-4977 (online)

From Motives to Optimal Functioning: The Beneficial Role of Self-Concordance in Crafting a Good Life

18

M. Subasi

PDF (ENG)
GS
Information
in Google Scholar

Abstract

Hedonic, eudaimonic, and extrinsic motives in daily activities affect well-being outcomes. Hedonic motives refer to pleasure and comfort pursuit. Eudaimonic motives include pursuing excellence, authenticity, growth, meaning, and value-congruent activity. Extrinsic motives encompass the pursuit of fame, power, status, material wealth, and popularity. Previous research has laid emphasis on the connections of well-being motives and outcomes. However, these studies do not largely focus on personal goal selection and pursuit. This study adopts the Self-Concordance Model (SCM), and investigates the mediating role of goal self-concordance between well-being motives and outcomes including positive affect, negative affect, meaning in life, and life satisfaction. A total of 823 participants (Age mean = 23,41, SD = 6,94) took part in the study. The results showed that eudaimonic and extrinsic motives had associations with most of the well-being outcomes while hedonic motivation interestingly demonstrated no associations with them. Furthermore, goal self-concordance substantially mediated the positive effects of eudaimonic motivation and the negative effects of extrinsic motivation on well-being outcomes. Implications of well-being motives and outcomes in the context of personal goals are discussed.

General Information

Keywords: well-being motives, well-being, ill-being, goal self-concordance, hedonic motives, eudaimonic motives, extrinsic motives

Journal rubric: Neurosciences and Cognitive Studies

Article type: scientific article

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/jmfp.2024130407

Funding. This research was prepared within the framework of HSE University Basic Research Program and funded by the International Laboratory of Positive Psychology of Personality and Motivation at HSE University.

Received: 27.09.2024

Accepted:

For citation: Subasi M. From Motives to Optimal Functioning: The Beneficial Role of Self-Concordance in Crafting a Good Life [Elektronnyi resurs]. Sovremennaia zarubezhnaia psikhologiia = Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology, 2024. Vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 74–85. DOI: 10.17759/jmfp.2024130407.

Full text

Introduction

Recent conceptualizations of well-being largely lay emphasis on hedonic and eudaimonic facets of well-being. Hedonic perspectives emphasize the role of positive emotions, less experienced negative emotions, and satisfaction with life as primary elements of well-being [57]. However, eudaimonic perspectives highlight the role of excellence, meaning, self-growth, authenticity, valued goal pursuit, and self-actualization as fundamental dimensions of well-being [37; 40]. Research is fragmented in conceptualizing and measuring well-being in terms of hedonic, eudaimonic, and both facets [21; 39]. Research suggests that challenges in conceptualizing and measuring well-being result from categories analyzed, measurement levels, and distinct definitions [20]. Instead, Huta and Waterman [20] maintain that well-being consists of motives, behaviors, experiences, and functioning. They make a distinction between motives and behaviors, and experiences and functioning. Motives and behaviors reflect ways of living, whereas experiences and functioning are their outcomes. Motives are the fundamental well-being category as they are intentionally chosen, representing one’s character/personality.
Drawing on this perspective, the Hedonic, Eudaimonic, and Extrinsic Motives for Activities (HEEMA) approach offers a detailed perspective on well-being motives [15; 19; 23]. This approach suggests that well-being motives encompass hedonic (comfort and pleasure), eudaimonic, and extrinsic motives, measured by the HEEMA scale. Hedonic motives refer to pleasure and comfort pursuit. Eudaimonic motives include pursuing excellence, authenticity, growth, meaning, and value-congruent activity. Extrinsic motives encompass the pursuit of fame, power, status, material wealth, and popularity [18; 23]. The HEEMA emphasizes the distinction between well-being motives and outcomes. Further research supported this distinction in state and trait-level motives and functioning [16; 17]. Research indicates that well-being motives have complementary and differential roles in well-being outcomes [19; 24; 49].
Prior research has demonstrated that extrinsic motivation often leads to negative or insignificant outcomes in well-being (e. g., positive affect, life satisfaction) [54; 55], while eudaimonic motivation and hedonic motivation largely distinctly result in beneficial well-being outcomes such as need satisfaction, positive affect, life satisfaction, meaning in life, personal growth, and elevation [19; 30; 33; 42]. Eudaimonic motivation is often negatively associated with ill-being outcomes such as higher negative affect, need frustration, depression, and anxiety [13; 24; 49; 55; 58]; however, hedonic motivation demonstrates inconsistent results in some of the well-being outcomes and ill-being outcomes such as negative affect, depression, need frustration by insignificant relationships [13; 58] and weak positive relationships [12; 24]. These findings demonstrate that eudaimonic motivation has shown stronger associations with well-being and ill-being outcomes than hedonic motivation.
Recently, there has been a growing interest in connecting well-being motives and outcomes. Research has investigated basic psychological needs [22; 24; 42; 51], academic engagement and procrastination [3], self-control [12; 58], mindfulness [34], orientation priority [7], prioritizing meaning [35], positivity priority [31], emotion regulation [52], and mastery behavior [4] as mediators and moderators between well-being motives and outcomes. However, these studies considered eudaimonic and hedonic motives and behaviors at an activity level. Although there are attempts to integrate well-being motives with other motivational frameworks, such as regulatory focus theory [6] and motivational conflict theory [5], the role of personal goals between well-being motives and outcomes remains unexplored. To address this challenge, the current research investigates the role of self-concordant goals beyond an activity level as a mediator between well-being motives and outcomes by relying on the Self-Concordance Model [44; 45].

The Self-Concordance Model

Self-Determination Theory (SDT) suggests that people seek out self-growth and self-actualization. They have basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The satisfaction of these needs leads to positive well-being and psychological health, whereas their frustration is linked to negative well-being and worse mental health [38]. In the context of personal goals and motivation, SDT research has proven that people may have different reasons and motivations in their goal selection and pursuit. They may select or pursue their goals for controlled and autonomous reasons. Individuals with controlled motivation (i. e., introjected regulation, external regulation) in their goal selection/pursuit are likely to experience no beneficial or even harmful outcomes in well-being. In contrary, individuals with autonomous motivation (i.e., intrinsic regulation, identified regulation) are likely to experience positive emotions, need satisfaction, meaning, and greater satisfaction with life [2; 14; 46].
Drawing on SDT, the Self-Concordance Model (SCM) offers a framework for understanding how personal goals and motivation influence well-being and optimal functioning [10; 45; 46]. The SCM suggests that when people set or pursue their goals because they find them inherently valuable, meaningful, and rewarding (i.e., autonomous motivation), they are likely to have higher goal effort, experience need satisfaction, and in turn subjective well-being. However, when they set or pursue their goals because of external conditions (e. g., pressure) or internalized demands (e. g., shame), the elements of controlled motivation, they are unlikely to experience positive well-being outcomes [1; 26; 43; 48; 47; 50]. Goals set/pursued for autonomous reasons are defined as self-concordant goals, while goals set/pursued for controlled reasons are called non-concordant goals. Self-concordant goals tap into one’s underlying values and interests (Sheldon, 2014). Previous research has demonstrated that goal self-concordance relates to less depression, less anxiety, less negative affect, greater positive affect, and higher meaning in life [8; 11; 29; 41; 56].

The Present Research

The current research adopts the distinction between well-being motives and outcomes, hypothesizing that goal self-concordance will mediate the effects of these motives on well-being outcomes. The HEEMA research demonstrates that eudaimonic motives and hedonic motives positively relate to positive affect and life satisfaction, while being negatively associated with negative affect, depression, and anxiety. Extrinsic motives negatively relate to well-being outcomes, while being positively associated with negative affect, depression, and anxiety. Likewise, goal self-concordance is positively associated with positive affect and life satisfaction, while being negatively related to negative affect, depression, and anxiety. Thus, the hypotheses are as follows:
H1: Eudaimonic motives and goal self-concordance will have positive relationships with positive affect, meaning in life, and life satisfaction, and negative relationships with negative affect, depression, and anxiety. Hedonic motivation may have positive or insignificant associations with positive affect, meaning in life, and life satisfaction, and ill-being outcomes. Extrinsic motivation will have positive associations with negative affect, depression, and anxiety, and negative associations with well-being indicators.
H2: Goal self-concordance will mediate between well-being orientations (i. e., eudaimonic, hedonic, extrinsic) and well-being and ill-being outcomes.

Materials and Methods

Participants
This cross-sectional study, using convenience sampling, recruited a total of 823 participants. 634 participants were female and 189 participants were male. The age of the participants ranged between 18 and 59 years old. The age mean was 23,41 years old (SD = 6,91). Participants reported the current education level they had: PhD (2%), master (6%), bachelor (80%), associate degree (6%), and high school (6%). Participants were 91% single.
Instruments
Hedonic, eudaimonic, and extrinsic motives for activities (HEEMA). The HEEMA scale measured hedonic (e. g., “Seeking fun?”), eudaimonic (e. g., “Seeking to do what you believe in?”), and extrinsic (e. g., “Seeking to be admired and well-known?”) motives with a total of 15 items. Each subscale included 5 items. The HEEMA was rated on a seven-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). The HEEMA was measured as a trait scale. The wording of the scale was: “To what degree do you typically approach your activities with each of the following intentions, whether or not you actually achieve your aim?” The HEEMA originally demonstrated the following reliability: Hedonic motivation (α = 0,81); eudaimonic orientation (α = 0,84); and extrinsic orientation (α = 0,91) [19; 23].
Goal self-concordance. Goal self-concordance was assessed using the perceived locus of causality (PLOC) [36; 45]. The present research asked participants to write down three personal goals currently being pursued. The wording of this instruction was: “Personal goals are those endpoints that we think about, plan for, strive towards, and achieve or succeed in though not always. Please list the three most important goals that you are currently pursuing. You do not need to rank them in order of importance: simply identify those three goals that are most significant for you. Write down these goals and rate each goal for the following reasons using the scale below.” The PLOC using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from “1 = Not at all for this reason” to “7 = Completely because of this reason“ consisted of four reasons including intrinsic, identified, introjected, and external. The intrinsic reason was “you pursue this goal because of the enjoyment or stimulation that goal provides you.” The identified reason was “you pursue this goal because you really believe that it’s an important goal to have.” The introjected reason was “you pursue this goal because you would feel ashamed, guilty, or anxious if you didn’t. The external reason was “you pursue this goal because somebody else wants you to, or because the situation seems to compel it.” The present research calculated goal self-concordance for each goal score using the formula: (intrinsic score + identified score) (external score + introjected score). The average goal self-concordance score was calculated across three goals. Greater scores represented higher goal self-concordance. Goal self-concordance had the following reliability in previous studies: α = 0,78 [47].
Life satisfaction. Life satisfaction was assessed using the Satisfaction with Life scale (SWLS) [53]. The SWLS had a one-factor with 5 items (e. g., “I am satisfied with my life.”) rated on a seven-point Likert scale that ranges from “1 = Strongly disagree” to “7 = Strongly agree.” The wording of the instruction was “Please answer the following questions that you may agree or disagree with in general using the scale below.” The SWLS originally demonstrated good reliability: α = 0,87.
Positive and negative affect. Positive affect and negative affect were evaluated using the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE) [28]. The SPANE consisted of two factors with a total of 12 items. Both positive affect (e. g., joyful) and negative affect (e. g., sad) included 6 items rated on a five-point Likert scale from “1 = Very rarely or never” to “5 = Very often or always.” measured considering the past month. The wording of the instruction was “Please think about what you have been doing and experiencing during the past four weeks. Then report how much you experienced each of the following feelings, using the scale below.” The SPANE originally showed good reliability: positive affect (α = 0,87); negative affect (α = 0,81).
Depression and anxiety. Depression and anxiety were evaluated using the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) rated on a four-point Likert scale from “0 = did not apply to me at all” to “3 = applied to me very much or most of the time.” [25]. This study only measured depression (e. g., “I couldn’t seem to experience any positive feeling at all.”) and anxiety (e. g., “I felt scared without any good reason”) subscales of the DASS-21, each of which had 7 items. The wording of the scale was “Please read each statement below and choose the number from 0, 1, 2 or 3 that best fits you throughout the past week. There are no right or wrong answers to the questions.” The DASS-21 originally indicated good reliability: Depression (α = 0,90); anxiety (α = 0,82).
Meaning in life. Meaning in life was measured by the Multidimensional Existential Meaning Scale (MEMS) rated on a five-point Likert scale from “1 = Very strongly disagree” to “7 = Very strongly agree.” [9]. The MEMS included three distinct factors, each encompassing 5 items: comprehension, purpose, mattering. This study measured a general meaning in life (e. g., “I know what my life is about.”) factor as it was applicable based on the results of a bifactor model in previous research [27]. The wording of the scale was “Please read the following items carefully. Using the response scale listed next to each item indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with that statement.” The MEMS originally demonstrated good reliability as well as a bifactor model’s reliability scores: Comprehension (α = 0,90); purpose (α = 0,85); mattering (α = 0,84); meaning in life general score (α = 0,94).
Data collection and analysis
The present research gathered data in the last ten days of May 2024. Participants had to be older than 18 years to take part in the research. Participants filled out a Google forms link. Prior to responding to the survey items, participants were informed about the research. To begin responding, participants first granted informed consent. This study adhered to the ethical guidelines of the Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. Participants had the right to leave the study anytime and were guaranteed that their data would not be processed in such a case. Participants were informed that the responses would be kept confidential and none of the participants’ information would be identifiable.
As data analysis procedures, the present research evaluated raw data and did not identify any outliers and missing data. Mean, standard deviation, Pearson correlations, and internal consistency scores of the variables of interest were analyzed. To test the mediating role of goal self-concordance, bootstrapping analyses (percent) at 95% CIs were conducted using 5,000 replications. Listwise deletion was used as missing data handling. Bootstrapping analyses (percent) were used since they had robust statistical power and confidence intervals [32].
This study utilized Jamovi 2.5.5, an R-based statistical software, for analyses (see supplementary materials for details in the Files section: https://osf.io/efb86).

Results

Descriptive statistics, internal consistency scores, and associations of the variables of interest
As shown in Table 1, descriptive statistics, reliability scores, and associations of eudaimonic motivation, hedonic motivation, extrinsic motivation, goal self-concordance, positive affect, life satisfaction, meaning in life, negative affect, depression, and anxiety were analyzed. Eudaimonic motivation had positive associations with goal self-concordance and well-being indicators, while having a negative relationship with depression. Hedonic motivation had a weak negative relationship with goal self-concordance, while having weak positive relationships with depression and anxiety. Extrinsic motivation had weak negative associations with goal self-concordance and meaning in life, while having positive associations with negative affect, depression, and anxiety. Goal self-concordance had weak and moderate positive associations with all well-being indicators, and weak and moderate negative associations with negative affect, depression, and anxiety. These findings predominantly supported the first hyptothesis.
 
Table 1
Descriptive statistics, internal consistency scores, and associations of the variables of interest

V

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

M

SD

α

1. EUD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5,91

0,83

0,73

2. HED

0,30***

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5,31

1,03

0,75

3. EXT

0,06

0,38***

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4,11

1,48

0,87

4. GSC

0,29***

–0,08*

–0,20***

 

 

 

 

 

 

1,93

3,18

0,69

5. PA

0,20***

0,07

–0,05

0,28***

 

 

 

 

 

3,39

0,73

0,90

6. LS

0,18***

–0,02

–0,07

0,31***

0,63***

 

 

 

 

3,90

1,19

0,85

7. MiL

0,40***

0,05

–0,10**

0,37***

0,52***

0,48***

 

 

 

3,84

0,78

0,93

8. NA

–0,02

0, 05

0,08*

–0,20***

–0,65***

–0,45***

–0,33***

 

 

2,91

0,72

0,78

9. DEP

–0,11**

0,09**

0,16***

–0,32***

–0,58***

–0,45***

–0,54***

0,57***

 

1,27

0,80

0,89

10. ANX

–0,00

0,08*

0,19***

–0,20***

–0,46***

–0,36***

–0,31***

0,52***

0,74***

1,11

0,79

0,88
Note. «*» — p < 0,05; «**» — p < 0,01; «***» — p < 0,001. EUD = Eudaimonic motivation; HED = Hedonic motivation; EXT = Extrinsic motivation; GSC = Goal self-concordance; PA = Positive affect; LS = Life satisfaction; MiL = Meaning in life; NA = Negative affect; DEP = Depression; ANX = Anxiety; V = Variable.
 
Mediation analysis
As shown in Table 2, mediation analyses were carried out to test the mediating role of goal self-concordance. Goal self-concordance mediated the relationships between eudaimonic motivation and life satisfaction, meaning in life, positive affect, and depression; hedonic motivation and depression, and anxiety; and extrinsic motivation, and meaning in life, negative affect, depression, and anxiety.
The results suggested that increased eudaimonic motivation led to higher goal self-concordance, which in turn enhanced positive affect, meaning in life, life satisfaction, and reduced depression. Moreover, increased hedonic motivation was conducive to less goal self-concordance, which in turn increased depression and anxiety. Finally, increased extrinsic motivation resulted in less goal self-concordance, which in turn decreased meaning in life and promoted negative affect, depression, and anxiety.
 
Table 2
The Mediating Role of Goal Self-Concordance Between Well-Being Orientations, and Well-Being and Ill-Being Outcomes

Predictors and Mediators

Effect of predictor on mediator (a)

Unique effect of mediator (b)

Indirect effect (ab)

95% CI

 

 

 

 

lower

upper

Life satisfaction

Eudaimonic motivation

Goal self-concordance

3,28 (0,38)**

0,03 (0,00)**

0,11 (0,02)**

0,08

0,15

Meaning in life

Eudaimonic motivation

Goal self-concordance

3,28 (0,38)**

0,02 (0,00)**

0,07 (0,01)**

0,05

0,10

Extrinsic motivation

Goal self-concordance

–1,29 (0,22)**

0,03 (0,00)**

–0,04 (0,01)**

–0,05

–0,03

Positive affect

Eudaimonic motivation

Goal self-concordance

3,28 (0,38)**

0,02 (0,00)**

0,06 (0,01)**

0,04

0,09

Negative affect

Extrinsic motivation

Goal self-concordance

–1,29 (0,22)**

–0,01 (0,00)**

0,02 (0,00)**

0,01

0,03

Depression

Eudaimonic motivation

Goal self-concordance

3,28 (0,38)**

–0,03 (0,00)**

–0,09 (0,01)**

–0,12

–0,06

Hedonic motivation

Goal self-concordance

–0,74 (0,32)**

–0,03 (0,00)**

0,02 (0,01)**

0,00

0,04

Extrinsic motivation

Goal self–concordance

–1,29 (0,22)**

–0,03 (0,00)**

0,03 (0,01)**

0,02

0,05

Anxiety

Hedonic motivation

Goal self–concordance

–0,74 (0,32)**

–0,02 (0,00)**

0,01 (0,01)**

0,00

0,02

Extrinsic motivation

Goal self–concordance

–1,29 (0,22)**

–0,01 (0,00)**

0,02 (0,00)**

0,01

0,03
Notes. Regression coefficients are unstandardized. Values in parentheses are standard errors. «*» —p < 0,05; «**» —p < 0,001.
 

Discussion

The present research significantly contributes to the understanding of well-being motives and outcomes by investigating the associations between hedonic motivation, eudaimonic motivation, extrinsic motivation, positive affect, meaning in life, life satisfaction, negative affect, depression, and anxiety, with a particular focus on the mediating role of goal self-concordance. These results indicate the complexity of well-being and highlight the role of integrating personal goals in a well-being motivation/outcome context.
The findings largely support the first hypothesis. Eudaimonic motivation, characterized by personal growth and meaningful pursuits, consistently shows positive associations with positive affect, meaning in life, and life satisfaction, and is associated with less depression, as in previous research [13; 24; 49]. In line with previous findings, hedonic motivation, which primarily focuses on comfort and pleasure, does not demonstrate significant relationships with well-being outcomes and surprisingly indicates positive relationships with depression and anxiety [12; 24]. Furthermore, the results confirm the detrimental effects of extrinsic motivation on well-being. Similar to prior findings, extrinsic motivation, which highlights the pursuit of fame, wealth, and popularity, negatively relates to positive affect, meaning in life, and life satisfaction, while having positive associations with negative affect, depression, and anxiety [54; 55]. These findings indicate that eudaimonic motivation leads to more sustainable forms of well-being and psychological health, while they suggest that hedonic and extrinsic motives are less likely to bring beneficial outcomes in well-being and more likely to lead to higher ill-being outcomes.
The results offer a nuanced perspective on the role of goal self-concordance from motives to well-being. They lay emphasis on the beneficial and protective role of goal self-concordance in well-being and ill-being outcomes. The findings suggest that personal goals pursued for autonomous reasons, self-concordant goals, foster the effects of eudaimonic motives in promoting engagement in activities that enhance well-being outcomes and decrease the level of depression. This implies that goal self-concordance facilitates the pursuit of personal growth, authenticity, meaning, and self-growth; thus, it leads to positive well-being and buffers against depression. These provide considerable evidence for the second hypothesis that goal self-concordance mediates the relationship between well-being motives and outcomes is substantiated by significant mediation analyses, which supports the main idea of the SCM that self-concordant goals substantially influence well-being and optimal functioning [44; 45]. So, selecting and pursuing self-concordant goals promote the effects of eudaimonic motives in enhancing well-being and reducing ill-being.
The results indicate that hedonic motivation leads to less goal self-concordance and, in turn, higher depression and anxiety. This finding implies that hedonic motivation may relate to the immediate gratification of pleasure and comfort in activities, which may not be effective in self-concordant goal context. Another implication is that the emphasis on hedonism in social narratives may affect individuals’ long-term goal expectations. The findings also demonstrate that pursuing wealth, status, and popularity results in less goal self-concordance, which deteriorates positive well-being and enhances ill-being. This is in line with the SCM research and shows similar outcomes in non-concordant goals, which are pursued for external and introjected reasons. The SCM suggests that non-concordant or extrinsic goals do not tap into individuals’ underlying potentials and interests, entailing less need satisfaction, less positive emotions, and less satisfaction with life [10; 47; 50]. These results highlight that selecting and pursuing self-concordant goals may decrease the detrimental effects of extrinsic motivation on well-being outcomes and buffer against the reinforcing effects of extrinsic motivation on ill-being outcomes.
The obtained results of this study confirm the beneficial role of goal self-concordance in psychological health and optimal functioning. Setting and pursuing self-concordant goals may help people realize their potentials and facilitate the expression of their eudaimonic and growth interests. Goal self-concordance can serve as a protective factor between hedonic motives, and potentially harmful outcomes. Hedonic motives do not seemingly bring the long-lasting fulfillment associated self-concordant goals, and prioritize superficial success over valued goals. Moreover, self-concordant goals may reduce the disconnection from one’s authentic self since extrinsic motives are not likely to represent one’s personal interests and dispositions.
The present research has several limitations. The cross-sectional nature of the study precludes the speculation of causal relationships. This research relied on self-report measures. The HEEMA version was evaluated as a trait version. The sample consisted of adults, which may not be generalizable to other populations. The obtained findings are limited since mediation analysis results are based on cross-sectional data. Future research is recommended to overcome these limitations by state-level measurement of the HEEMA and longitudinal designs. Further research may focus on further connections between the HEEMA and the SCM, especially in prospective designs with experiments.
Research can investigate integrating eudaimonic motivation, hedonic motivation, and self-concordance with a particular focus on daily activities and long-term goal pursuits despite negative outcomes of hedonic motives in this research. Since previous research indicates the differential and beneficial roles of eudaimonic motives and hedonic motives [19; 30; 37], both motives can be useful in setting and pursuing self-concordant goals. Hedonic motives can provide an immediate focus on meeting the requirements of goals, while eudaimonic motives can help people stay on track to their cherished goals. Additional research is needed to explore personal resources and other factors in facilitating the connections of these motives with personal goals. Further research can aim at improving valued goal pursuit to reduce the effects of eudaimonic motives.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study underlines the significance of setting and/or pursuing self-concordant goals by shedding light on the relationships between different types of motives and well-being outcomes. The results demonstrate that eudaimonic motives lead to more positive well-being outcomes and psychological health, whereas hedonic and extrinsic motives are associated with less positive well-being outcomes and increased anxiety and depression. Moreover, goal self-concordance mediates the effects of these motives on well-being, promoting personal growth and well-being while buffering against psychological distress.
These results emphasize the importance of setting and/or pursuing goals that are congruent with one’s authentic interests. Self-concordant goals are likely to contribute to optimal functioning, enhance beneficial well-being outcomes, and reduce psychological distress. These goals heighten the effects of eudaimonic motives and mitigate the effects of hedonic and extrinsic motives. Pursuing these goals can facilitate one’s engagement in activities related to personal growth, meaning, autonomy, virtue, and excellence. These results lay the groundwork for future research in developing strategies for promoting well-being across diverse populations. Future research should focus on valued goal selection and the pursuit of these goals in relation to putting well-being motives into action.

References

  1. Koestner R., Lekes N., Powers T.A., Chicoine E. Attaining personal goals: Self-concordance plus implementation intentions equals success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2002. Vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 231—244. DOI:10.1037//0022-3514.83.1.231
  2. Vansteenkiste M., Smeets S., Soenens B., Lens W., Matos L., Deci E.L. Autonomous and controlled regulation of performance-approach goals: Their relations to perfectionism and educational outcomes. Motivation and Emotion, 2010. Vol. 34, pp. 333—353. DOI:10.1007/s11031-010-9188-3
  3. Chen H., Zeng Z. Associations of hedonic and eudaimonic orientations with subjective experience and objective functioning in academic settings: The mediating roles of academic behavioral engagement and procrastination. Frontiers in Psychology, 2022. Vol. 13, article 948768. 11 p. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.948768
  4. Chen H., Zeng Z. Happiness motives and mental health mediated by mastery behavior and smartphone addiction: Variable-centered and person-centered approaches. Personality and Individual Differences, 2024. Vol. 222, article 112575. 8 p. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2024.112575
  5. Chen H., Zeng Z. Longitudinal well-being through the pursuit of hedonia and eudaimonia: Inhibition and enhancement of eudaimonic behavior. Current Psychology, 2024. Vol. 43, pp. 6603—6612. DOI:10.1007/s12144-023-04857-x
  6. Chen H., Zeng Z. Seeking pleasure is good, but avoiding pain is bad: Distinguishing hedonic approach from hedonic avoidance orientations. Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 2023. Vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 2377—2393. DOI:10.1007/s10902-023-00687-7
  7. Chen H., Zeng Z. When do hedonic and eudaimonic orientations lead to happiness? Moderating effects of orientation priority. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2021. Vol. 18, no. 18, article ID 9798. 12 p. DOI:10.3390/ijerph18189798
  8. Gaudreau P. Goal self-concordance moderates the relationship between achievement goals and indicators of academic adjustment. Learning and Individual Differences, 2012. Vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 827—832. DOI:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.06.006
  9. George L.S., Park C.L. The multidimensional existential meaning scale: A tripartite approach to measuring meaning in life. The Journal of Positive Psychology: Dedicated to furthering research and promoting good practice, 2017. Vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 613—627. DOI:10.1080/17439760.2016.1209546
  10. Sezer B., Riddell H., Gucciardi D., Sheldon K.M., Sedikides C., Vasconcellos D., Jackson B., Thøgersen-Ntoumani C., Ntoumanis N.  Goal motives, goal-regulatory processes, psychological needs, and well-being [Electronic resource]: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Motivation Science. 2024. 58 p. [Unpublished manuscript]. URL: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/493985 (дата обращения: 25.09.2024).
  11. Gorges J., Esdar W., Wild E. Linking goal self-concordance and affective reactions to goal conflict. Motivation and Emotion, 2014. Vol. 38, pp. 475—484. DOI:10.1007/s11031-014-9392-7
  12. Gentzler A.L., DeLong K.L., Palmer C.A., Huta V. Hedonic and eudaimonic motives to pursue well-being in three samples of youth. Motivation and Emotion, 2021. Vol. 45, pp. 312—326. DOI:10.1007/s11031-021-09882-6
  13. Braaten A., Huta V., Tyrany L., Thompson A. Hedonic and eudaimonic motives toward university studies: How they relate to each other and to well-being derived from school. Journal of Positive Psychology and Wellbeing, 2019. Vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 179—196.
  14. Holding A., Koestner R. The role of motivation in the lifecycle of personal goals. In Ryan R.M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Self-Determination Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 2023, pp. 327—345.
  15. Huta V. Eudaimonic and hedonic orientations: Theoretical considerations and research findings. In Vittersø J. (ed.), Handbook of Eudaimonic Well-Being. London: Springer, 2016, pp. 215—231. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-42445-3_15
  16. Huta V. How distinct are eudaimonia and hedonia? It depends on how they are measured. Journal of Well-Being Assessment, 2022. Vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 511—537. DOI:10.1007/s41543-021-00046-4
  17.      Huta V. Introducing a model of healthy hedonic functioning, and demonstrating its distinctness from eudaimonic functioning (psychological well-being). [Manuscript in preparation].
  18. Huta V. The complementary roles of eudaimonia and hedonia and how they can be pursued in practice. In Joseph S. (ed.), Positive Psychology in Practice: Promoting Human Flourishing in Work, Health, Education, and Everyday Life. Hoboken: Wiley, 2015, pp. 159—182. DOI:10.1002/9781118996874.ch10
  19. Huta V., Ryan R.M. Pursuing pleasure or virtue: The differential and overlapping well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 2010. Vol. 11, pp. 735—762. DOI:10.1007/s10902-009-9171-4
  20. Huta V., Waterman A.S. Eudaimonia and its distinction from Hedonia: Developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 2014. Vol. 15, pp. 1425—1456. DOI:10.1007/s10902-013-9485-0
  21. Joshanloo M. Revisiting the empirical distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being using exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 2016. Vol. 17, pp. 2023—2036. DOI:10.1007/s10902-015-9683-z
  22. Kinoshita K., MacIntosh E., Sato S. Thriving in youth sport: The antecedents and consequences. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2021. Vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 356—376. DOI:10.1080/1612197X.2021.1877327
  23. LeFebvre A., Huta V. Age and gender differences in eudaimonic, hedonic, and extrinsic motivations. Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 2021. Vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 2299—2321. DOI:10.1007/s10902-020-00319-4
  24. Lin L., Chan H.W. The associations between happiness motives and well-being in China: The mediating role of psychological need satisfaction and frustration. Frontiers in Psychology, 2020. Vol. 11, article 2198. 14 p. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02198
  25. Lovibond P.F., Lovibond S.H. The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1995. Vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 335—343. DOI:10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-U
  26. Milyavskaya M., Nadolny D., Koestner R. Where do self-concordant goals come from? The role of domain-specific psychological need satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2014. Vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 700—711. DOI:10.1177/0146167214524445
  27. Subasi M., Karaman H., Bulut S., Osin E.N. Turkish Validation of the Multidimensional Existential Meaning Scale (MEMS): A Bifactor Model Approach. [Submitted manuscript].
  28. Diener E., Wirtz D., Biswas-Diener R., Tov W., Kim-Prieto C., Choi D.W., Oishi S. New measures of well-being. In Diener E. (ed.), Assessing Well-Being: The Collected Works. London, New York: Springer, 2009, pp. 247—266. DOI:10.1007/978-90-481-2354-4_12
  29. Ong A.D., Phinney J.S. Personal goals and depression among Vietnamese American and European American young adults: A mediational analysis. The Journal of Social Psychology, 2002. Vol. 142, no. 1, pp. 97—108. DOI:10.1080/00224540209603888
  30. Osin E.N., Voevodina E.Y., Kostenko V.Y. A growing concern for meaning: Exploring the links between ego development and eudaimonia. Frontiers in Psychology, 2023. Vol. 14, article 958721. 14 p. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.958721
  31. Passmore H.A., Howell A.J., Holder M.D. Positioning implicit theories of well-being within a positivity framework. Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 2018. Vol. 19, pp. 2445—2463. DOI:10.1007/s10902-017-9934-2
  32. Preacher K.J., Hayes A.F. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers, 2004. Vol. 36, pp. 717—731. DOI:10.3758/BF03206553
  33. Asano R., Tsukamoto S., Igarashi T., Huta V. Psychometric properties of measures of hedonic and eudaimonic orientations in Japan: The HEMA scale. Current Psychology, 2021. Vol. 40, pp. 390—401. DOI:10.1007/s12144-018-9954-z
  34. Richter N., Hunecke M. The mindful hedonist? Relationships between well-being orientations, mindfulness and well-being experiences. Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 2021. Vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 3111—3135. DOI:10.1007/s10902-021-00-358-5
  35. Russo-Netzer P., Tarrasch R. The path to life satisfaction in adolescence: Life orientations, prioritizing, and meaning in life. Current Psychology, 2024. Vol. 43, no. 18, pp. 16591—16603. DOI:10.1007/s12144-023-05608-8
  36. Ryan R.M., Connell J.P. Perceived locus of causality and internalization: examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1989. Vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 749—761. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749
  37. Ryan R.M., Deci E.L. On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 2001. Vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 141—166. DOI:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141
  38. Ryan R.M., Deci E.L. Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Publications, 2017. 756 p.
  39. Ryff C.D., Boylan J.M., Kirsch J.A. Eudaimonic and hedonic well-being. Lee M.T., Kubzansky L.D., VanderWeele T.J. (eds.), Measuring Well-Being: Interdisciplinary Perspectives from the Social Sciences and the Humanities. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021, pp. 92—135.
  40. Ryff C.D., Singer B.H. Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 2008. Vol. 9, pp. 13—39. DOI:10.1007/s10902-006-9019-0
  41. Sangeorzan P.C., Goodson W.L., Bohon L.M. The Why to Bear Any How: Goal Self-Concordance, Meaning, and Depressive and Anxious Symptomatology. International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology, 2024. Vol. 9, pp. 879—898. DOI:10.1007/s41042-024-00158-1
  42. Saunders C., Huta V., Sweet S.N. Physical activity, well-being, and the basic psychological needs: Adopting the SDT model of eudaimonia in a post-cardiac rehabilitation sample. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 2018. Vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 347—367. DOI:10.1111/aphw.12136
  43. Sheldon K., Gordeeva T., Sychev O., Osin E., Titova L. Self-concordant goals breed goal-optimism and thus well-being. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological, 2020. Vol. 41(9), pp. 6549—6557. DOI:10.1007/s12144-020-01156-7
  44. Sheldon K.M. Becoming oneself: The central role of self-concordant goal selection. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2014. Vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 349—365. DOI:10.1177/1088868314538549
  45. Sheldon K.M., Elliot A.J. Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1999. Vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 482—497. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.76.3.482
  46. Sheldon K.M., Elliot A.J. Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing autonomous and controlled reasons for goals as predictors of effort and attainment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1998. Vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 546—557. DOI:10.1177/0146167298245010
  47. Sheldon K.M., Houser-Marko L. Self-concordance, goal attainment, and the pursuit of happiness: Can there be an upward spiral? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2001. Vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 152—165. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.152
  48. Sheldon K.M., Prentice M., Osin E. Rightly crossing the Rubicon: Evaluating goal self-concordance prior to selection helps people choose more intrinsic goals. Journal of Research in Personality, 2019. Vol. 79, pp. 119—129. DOI:10.1016/j.jrp.2019.03.001
  49. Giuntoli L., Condini F., Ceccarini F., Huta V., Vidotto G. The different roles of hedonic and eudaimonic motives for activities in predicting functioning and well-being experiences. Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 2021. Vol. 22, pp. 1657—1671. DOI:10.1007/s10902-020-00290-0
  50. Sheldon K.M., Ryan R.M., Deci E.L., Kasser T. The independent effects of goal contents and motives on well-being: It’s both what you pursue and why you pursue it. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2004. Vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 475—486. DOI:10.1177/0146167203261883
  51. Jiang J., Zeng T., Zhang C., Wang R. The mediating role of relatedness need satisfaction in the relationship between charitable behavior and well-being: Empirical evidence from China. International Journal of Psychology, 2018. Vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 349—355. DOI:10.1002/ijop.12377
  52. Ortner C.N., Corno D., Fung T.Y., Rapinda K. The roles of hedonic and eudaimonic motives in emotion regulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 2018. Vol. 120, pp. 209—212. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2017.09.006
  53. Diener E.D., Emmons R.A., Larsen R.J., Griffin S. The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1985. Vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 71—75. DOI:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
  54. Hohm A., Happel O., Hurtienne J., Grundgeiger T. User experience in safety–critical domains: A survey on motivational orientations and psychological need satisfaction in acute care. Cognition, Technology & Work, 2022. Vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 247—260. DOI:10.1007/s10111-022-00697-0
  55. Koumantarou Malisiova E., Mourikis I., Darviri C., Michou M., Provi K., Vlachakis D., Bacopoulou F., Papageorgiou C., Chrousos G.P. Validation of the Greek version of hedonic, eudaimonic, and extrinsic motives for activities (HEEMA) instrument. In Vlamos P. (ed.), GeNeDis 2020: Geriatrics, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021, pp. 137—147. DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-78771-4_16
  56. Voigt J., Sheldon K.M., Kehr H.M. When visions truly inspire: The moderating role of self-concordance in boosting positive affect, goal commitment, and goal progress. Journal of Research in Personality, 2024. Vol. 109, article 104471. 14 p. DOI:10.1016/j.jrp.2024.104471
  57. Kahneman D., Diener E., Schwarz N. (eds.) Well-being: Foundations of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1999. 608 p.
  58. Zeng Z., Chen H. Distinct associations of hedonic and eudaimonic motives with well-being: Mediating role of self-control. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020. Vol. 17, no.15, article ID 5547. 9 p. DOI:10.3390/ijerph17155547

Information About the Authors

Mustafa Subasi, PhD in Psychology, Research Assistant, School of Psychology; International Laboratory of Positive Psychology of Personality and Motivation, HSE University, Department of Psychology, Ibn Haldun University, Moscow, Russia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4170-6280, e-mail: msubasi@hse.ru

Metrics

Views

Total: 47
Previous month: 0
Current month: 47

Downloads

Total: 18
Previous month: 0
Current month: 18