Эвдемоническая и гедоническая ориентации: связи с индикаторами психологического благополучия тема диссертации и автореферата по ВАК РФ 00.00.00, кандидат наук Субаши Мустафа

• Субаши Мустафа
• кандидат наук
• 2026

Оглавление диссертации кандидат наук Субаши Мустафа

Table of contents

Introduction

Chapter 1: Literature review: Theoretical analysis of well-being

1.1. An introduction to well-being

1.2. A brief history of happiness and well-being

1.3. Positive psychology

1.4. Current approaches to well-being

1.4.1. Hedonic approaches

1.4.2. Eudaimonic approaches

1.5. Common and distinct elements of well-being

1.6. Antecedents and outcomes of well-being

1.7. Issues in well-being theories and research

1.8. The need for a comprehensive framework

1.9. Well-being orientations

1.9.1. The Orientations to Happiness (OTH) approach

1.9.2. The Hedonic, Eudaimonic, and Extrinsic Motives for Activities (HEEMA) model

1.10. The present dissertation

Chapter 2. Empirical studies of well-being orientations and well-being experiences and outcomes

2.1. A systematic review and meta-analysis study of well-being orientations and well-being experiences and outcomes

2.2. Measurement invariance study of well-being orientations across country, gender, and age groups: Cross-cultural evidence across six countries

3

2.3. A serial mediation study of eudaimonic orientation and the Eudaimonic Activity Model: Psychological flexibility, basic psychological needs, meaning in life, and life

satisfaction

Chapter 3: General discussion

Conclusion

References

Appendix - Russian translation of the dissertation

Введение диссертации (часть автореферата) на тему «Эвдемоническая и гедоническая ориентации: связи с индикаторами психологического благополучия»

Introduction

The relevance of the study and the scope of previous research. Our daily life is filled with a multitude of activities, behaviors, thoughts, priorities, goals, and values. Whether it is deciding an outfit for a formal event, delaying sugary treats, eating a tasty dish, or embarking on a career to become a professional, these decisions exemplify the intricate and sophisticated nature of human behavior repertoire. Indeed, there are innumerous possibilities of activities, each of which reflects underlying orientations. Orientations certainly play a pivotal role in shaping daily activities or long-term desired outcomes or goals. They are driving forces or guiding principles affecting individuals' activities or behaviors, and illuminating individual reasons regarding these activities/behaviors. This dissertation adopts that orientations are trait-like constructs while they operate at both state and trait levels (Huta, 2016a; Huta & Ryan, 2010; LeFebvre & Huta, 2021). As emphasized by Huta and Ryan (2010), understanding orientations provides a more nuanced understanding of human behavior, helping us predict future actions and envision their consequences, particularly in terms of well-being experiences and outcomes. By figuring out the complexity of individuals' orientations, we acquire a well-informed understanding of human behavior and the factors that influence our well-being, functioning, and mental health. This refined comprehension empowers us when engaging in activities, eventually directing us towards a more fulfilled life and pathways that yield positive outcomes in well-being. While orientations help us explain behavior, their specific links to well-being remain poorly understood - a fundamental issue in well-being research this dissertation addresses.

Well-being theory and research have further fundamental issues such as the

distinctiveness of hedonia and eudaimonia (e.g., Coyne, 2013; Disabato et al., 2016; Huta &

Ryan, 2010; Joshanloo, 2016; Kashdan et al., 2008; McMahan & Estes, 2011; Thorsteinsen

& Vitters0, 2020), cultural differences and underrepresentation of non-Western contexts

(e.g., Delle Fave, 2021; Krys et al., 2023, 2024), the elements of well-being constructs (e.g.,

Huta & Waterman, 2014; Proctor & Tweed, 2016; Ryan & Deci, 2002; Sheldon, 2013), and

5

clarifying eudaimonia and different good life conceptualizations (e.g., Diener et al., 2009a; Huta & Waterman, 2014). Hence, a comprehensive framework is reasonably needed.

As the scope of the current dissertation is orientations and their links with well-being experiences and outcomes, it primarily focuses on well-being orientation perspectives to contribute to understanding, resolving, and offering solutions to the issues addressed above. The current literature identifies two main approaches to well-being orientations: the Orientation to Happiness (OTH) (Peterson et al., 2005) and the Hedonic, Eudaimonic, and Extrinsic Motives for Activities (HEEMA) (Huta & Ryan, 2010; Huta, 2005, 2016a; LeFebvre & Huta, 2021). The OTH maintains that pleasure, meaning, and engagement are three main lifestyles leading to better well-being outcomes. However, it has been criticized on several grounds (e.g., conceptual and methodological issues, validity, narrow scope) (see 1.8.1).

Instead, the HEEMA framework stands out since it relies on an analytic approach to well-being theories and research (Huta & Waterman, 2014). The HEEMA suggests that well-being theory and research has fundamental issues that need to be resolved. It maintains that inconsistent findings in well-being research are due to different measurement categories (i.e., state vs. trait), that when eudaimonia and hedonia as elements of well-being are contrasted this leads to confusing and conflicting results, and that eudaimonia and hedonia are two broad components of well-being that require theoretical refinements (Huta & Waterman, 2014; Huta, 2016a).

The HEEMA suggests that well-being consists of core elements of eudaimonia and

hedonia, their close-to-core elements, and their major correlates. Well-being can be

decomposed into well-being orientations (i.e., hedonic, pleasure, comfort, eudaimonic,

extrinsic), behaviors, experiences (e.g., vitality, elevation) and outcomes/functioning (e.g.,

life satisfaction, flourishing). Hedonic and eudaimonic types of orientations are healthy ways

of living while extrinsic orientation may not be healthy. The HEEMA suggests the

situational, state, and trait measurement of well-being for the consistency of research

6

findings (Huta & Waterman, 2014; Huta, 2016a, 2016b; LeFebvre & Huta, 2021). Research has found support for this distinctiveness of the measurement versions of well-being (e.g., Huta & Ryan, 2010; Huta, 2016a, 2018, 2022, 2024).

Overall, the HEEMA attempts to contribute to better understanding of the issues of well-being theory and research and resolving them if applicable. It emerged as an approach because of theoretical confusions, conceptual vagueness, underlying philosophical assumptions, and conflicting findings in well-being theory and research (LeFebvre & Huta, 2021; Huta & Waterman, 2014; Huta, 2005, 2016a, 2016b). Thus, the present dissertation employs the HEEMA as its framework.

Prior research has demonstrated that eudaimonic orientation had mostly positive associations with well-being experiences (e.g., positive affect, engagement, flow, elevation, vitality) and outcomes (e.g., meaning in life, life satisfaction, happiness, emotional well-being, psychological well-being, social well-being) (e.g., Asano et al., 2021; Braaten et al., 2019; Chen & Zeng, 2021; Gentzler et al., 2021; Giuntoli et al., 2021; Koumantarou Malisiova et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021; Lin & Chan, 2020; Subasi, 2024a; Subasi & Osin, 2024; Zeng & Chen, 2020). It often had negative associations with ill-being variables (e.g., need frustration, stress, anxiety, depression) (e.g., Braaten et al., 2019; Chen & Zeng, 2023 a; Koumantarou Malisiova et al., 2021; Kryza-Lacombe et al., 2019; Lin & Chan, 2020; Subasi, 2024a) or no links with them (e.g., Giuntoli et al., 2021; Zeng & Chen, 2020). Hedonic orientation had often weak positive associations with those well-being indicators (e.g., Braaten et al., 2019; Koumantarou Malisiova et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021; Subasi & Osin, 2024; Subasi et al., 2025; van Halem et al., 2024a, 2024b), sometimes no significant associations with them and negative affect (Braaten et al., 2019; Lin & Chan, 2020; Zeng & Chen, 2020), while even having weak positive associations with depression among children (Gentzler et al., 2021), negative affect (Subasi et al., 2025; Zeng & Chen, 2020), autonomy frustration (Subasi et al., 2025; Lin & Chan, 2020), and competence frustration (Lin & Chan, 2020). Hedonic pleasure orientation had often positive associations with well-being

experiences (e.g., positive affect, need-satisfying experiences, elevation, calmness, carefreeness, interest) and well-being outcomes (e.g., life satisfaction, meaning in life, flourishing) while having mixed links with ill-being variables (e.g., negative affect) (e.g., Asano et al., 2014, 2020, 2021; Behzadnia & Ryan, 2018; Braaten et al., 2019; Chen & Zeng, 2023a, 2023b; Giuntoli et al., 2021, raw data reanalyzed; Huta et al., 2012; Subasi & Osin, 2024; Subasi et al., 2025; van Halem et al., 2024a, 2024b, raw data reanalyzed). Hedonic comfort orientation had often positive links with positive affect, life satisfaction, and calmness while having mixed results regarding well-being (e.g., meaning in life, flourishing, vitality, elevation, self-connectedness, interest) (e.g., Asano et al., 2014, 2020, 2021; Behzadnia & Ryan, 2018; Braaten et al., 2019; Huta et al., 2012; Subasi & Osin, 2024; Subasi et al., 2025). Extrinsic orientation negatively related to less grit, sometimes greater positive affect, sometimes greater flourishing, higher search for meaning, higher extraversion, and negative competence satisfaction as well as having a positive link with negative affect (e.g., Hohm et al., 2022; Koumantarou Malisiova et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2024a; see metaanalyses in the context of SDT, Bradshaw et al., 2023a; Ryan et al., 2022).

These findings definitely indicate that the HEEMA framework has commonly been employed in various areas of research. They demonstrate the distinct and complementary roles regarding hedonic (pleasure/comfort), eudaimonic, and extrinsic orientations regarding well-being experiences and outcomes. Yet these results offer a complicated picture. Despite the HEEMA's advances, it has faced several limitations. The major ones are presented here. First, the results remain inconclusive regarding how well-being orientations and/or behaviors are linked to well-being experiences and outcomes. Second, the findings lack a coherent framework for understanding different and complementary roles of well-being orientations/behaviors in shaping these experiences and outcomes. Third, the results do not indicate which well-being orientation may be more beneficial for these experiences and outcomes and which well-being orientation is more connected to these variables. Finally, the findings do not fully differentiate the roles of hedonic pleasure and hedonic comfort

orientations and provide a consistent pattern on the role of extrinsic orientation in connection with these experiences and outcomes.

Overall, the findings and the limitations above justify the need for a meta-analytic research to provide robust evidence that can help clarify these results and issues. The first study of international meta-analysis across 22 countries in the present dissertation takes on this task by demonstrating the connections of well-being orientations to well-being experiences and outcomes, also showing whether eudaimonic orientation is stronger than other types of orientations, and exploring various moderators (e.g., country-level, cultural, methodological) to explain heterogenous results. The first study is the beginning point of the interconnected series of research in this dissertation.

The first study lays the groundwork for well-being orientations, experiences, and outcomes. It particularly indicates country-level and cultural moderators significantly influence the meta-analytic associations, and calls for urgently needed research for the cross-cultural measurement of well-being orientations, in particular hedonic pleasure and comfort orientations. Prior studies strengthen this critical need. Research on the Self-Reported Hedonic and Eudaimonic Activities Scale (SHEA) (Huta, 2005), the Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives for Activities Scale (HEMA) (Huta & Ryan, 2010), the Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives for Activities Scale-Revised (HEMA-R) (Huta, 2016a), and the HEEMA (LeFebvre & Huta, 2021), has demonstrated both similar and distinct factor solutions, particularly for hedonic pleasure and comfort subscales of the HEMA-R, across diverse cultures (e.g., Asano et al., 2014, 2021; Anic, 2014; Behzadnia & Ryan, 2018; Betanzos et al., 2024; Bujacz et al., 2014; Enriquez-Negrete et al., 2024; Koumantarou Malisiova et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021; Subasi & Osin, 2024; Subasi et al., 2025; Winit & Kantabutra, 2022). Previous research has addressed cross-cultural measurement invariance either in a fully Western context using the nine-item HEMA via partial scalar invariance with nonivariance in certain items (Bujacz et al., 2014) or in a Latino context using the ten-item HEMA-R (Enriquez-Negrete et al., 2024). Prior research has shown full measurement

invariance across gender groups (female and male) and across age categories (i.e., 20-39, 40-59, 60+) in Japan using the nine-item HEMA and the eleven-item HEMA-R (Asano et al., 2020) and across age groups in China for the eudaimonic and hedonic subscales (Li et al., 2021). These studies demonstrate cultural variability of the factor structures (pleasure and comfort), a lack of focus across WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) (Henrich et al., 2010) and non-WEIRD cultures, noninvariance in certain items, cross-cultural differences in interpreting items, and insufficient support for universal contexts. Furthermore, well-being research has widely been conducted in WEIRD contexts, and cultures influence good life conceptualizations (Gorski et al., 2024; Joshanloo & Weijers, 2014; Krys et al., 2023, 2024). As recommended by Delle Fave (2021), cross-cultural research can provide valuable insights into well-being and its measurement. Overall, these results strongly support for the need for testing psychometric properties of the HEMA-R through measurement invariance analyses across WEIRD and non-WEIRD cultures, gender groups, and age categories. Thus, extending the findings of the first study of meta-analysis and previous research, the second study addresses the issue of cross-cultural comparability of well-being orientations and their psychometric properties. The second study is critical in that it demonstrates cross-cultural and psychometric similarities of well-being orientations, making the orientations globally measurable and applicable in theory and practice.

The first and second studies provide strong empirical and methodological evidence; however, they do not directly offer approaches to how orientations can be put into practice on the path to better well-being experiences and outcomes. Thus, the third study of the present dissertation theoretically offers the first novel approach that integrates relevant frameworks regarding the HEEMA. Given that psychological flexibility is closely relevant to well-being, it can be a focus of such integration. Prior research has suggested that psychological flexibility can be considered a eudaimonic activity model in connection with the Eudaimonic Activity Model (EAM) based on SDT (e.g., Howell et al., 2024; Howell &

Demuynck, 2023). The EAM maintains that doing well (i.e., eudaimonic orientation) and feeling well (subjective well-being) through need satisfaction (Martela & Sheldon, 2019; Sheldon, 2018). The EAM research has shown that psychological flexibility as a type of eudaimonic activity leads to the satisfaction of basic psychological needs, and in turn SWB (Howell et al., 2024; Howell & Demuynck, 2021, 2023). Similar to the EAM, the HEEMA research has consistently shown the benefits of eudaimonia as a well-being orientation/activity leading to need satisfaction (Hohm et al., 2022; Kinoshita et al., 2021; Lin & Chan, 2020; Saunders et al., 2018) and well-being in the context of the HEEMA (Huta, 2012; Huta & Ryan, 2010; Gentzler et al., 2021; Giuntoli et al., 2021) through variables such as emotion regulation (Ortner et al., 2018), mindfulness (Richter & Hunecke, 2021), and self-control (Braaten et al., 2019; Zeng & Chen, 2020).

Unlike the EAM-related research, the third study argues that psychological flexibility is a set of adaptive skills (e.g., acceptance, defusion) based on the Hexaflex model (Doorley et al., 2020; Hayes et al., 2011; Rolffs et al., 2018), helping individuals adapt their behavior toward pursuing value-driven activities by serving as regulatory mechanisms despite challenging circumstances (e.g., negative emotions, disturbing thoughts, and dysfunctional behaviors) (Bond & Flaxman, 2006; Hayes & Duckworth, 2006; Sheibani et al., 2019). In this sense, the HEEMA does not directly connect orientations and experiences and outcomes, which can be complemented by the EAM. However, the third study evaluates WB through meaning in life as an EWB indicator and life satisfaction as an SWB indicator as opposed to the EAM, which only considers SWB. The third study theoretically maintains that eudaimonic orientation leads to need satisfaction (well-being experiences) through psychological flexibility (adaptive regulatory mechanism), consequently contributing to greater meaning in life and life satisfaction (well-being outcomes), using a serial mediation model.

Aims of the research. The overall purpose of this dissertation is to discover the associations between well-being orientations, and well-being experiences and outcomes. It

is of importance to understand how these orientations lead to well-being experiences and outcomes, how they demonstrate equivalent measurement properties across diverse cultures, age categories, and gender groups, and how they are translated into action or can be manipulated on the path to having greater well-being experiences and outcomes considering the current literature. Through a series of three interconnected studies, this dissertation aims:

1. To investigate how eudaimonic orientation, hedonic orientation, hedonic pleasure orientation, hedonic comfort orientation, and extrinsic orientation relate to well-being experiences and outcomes (e.g., life satisfaction, meaning in life, purpose, positive affect, negative affect, psychological well-being, self-connectedness, elevation, vitality) in a meta-analytic level;

2. To explore potential moderators between well-being orientations, and well-being experiences and outcomes, and to account for potential similarities and differences across the studies included in the meta-analysis in case of heterogeneity regarding the significant effect sizes;

3. To compare cross-cultural and psychometric similarities of the constructs of eudaimonic, hedonic pleasure, and hedonic comfort orientations based on the HEMA-R through measurement invariance analyses across WEIRD and non-WEIRD cultures, age categories, and gender groups;

4. To examine whether psychological flexibility and in turn need satisfaction mediate between eudaimonic orientation and well-being outcomes, and to demonstrate whether they can help individuals translate their eudaimonic orientation into beneficial well-being outcomes.

Research objectives. Studying associations of well-being orientations and well-being experiences and outcomes in a meta-analytic level. Conducting a cross-cultural comparative analysis of well-being orientations. Testing a novel integrated model to show the beneficial roles of eudaimonic orientation on well-being outcomes.

Research object is well-being orientations. Hedonic orientation is defined as pursuing what subjectively is pleasant, and consists of the pursuit of two main components: pleasure and comfort. Hedonic pleasure orientation includes pursuing pleasant emotions/sensations and emotional satisfaction. Hedonic comfort orientation comprises pursuing relaxation, the absence of pain, and ease. Eudaimonic orientation is described as striving for what matters and is meaningful, and consists of the pursuit of four main components: authenticity, meaning, excellence, and growth (Huta & Ryan, 2010; Huta, 2016a).

Research topic is the associations and outcomes of well-being orientations with well-being, the cross-cultural measurement of well-being orientations, and the beneficial well-being effects of eudaimonic orientation.

Research design. The present dissertation includes three interconnected studies. The first study conducted an international meta-analysis and aimed to explore the associations of eudaimonic orientation, hedonic orientation, hedonic pleasure orientation, hedonic comfort orientation, and extrinsic orientation with well-being experiences and outcomes. The secondary goal of this meta-analysis was to show whether eudaimonic orientation had stronger associations than other types of orientations in the positive links with well-being experiences and outcomes. The third goal of this study was to explore whether moderators would influence the significant associations in case of heterogeneity. Extending the insights of the first study, the second study performed a cross-cultural measurement invariance analysis of well-being orientations across WEIRD and non-WEIRD cultures from six countries, age categories, and gender groups. Building on the first and second studies' findings, the third study tested a novel model that connects eudaimonic orientation, personal resources, well-being experiences, and well-being outcomes by a serial-mediation model.

General hypothesis. Eudaimonic and hedonic types of orientations positively relate to well-being experiences and outcomes.

Main hypotheses. The main hypotheses of the present dissertation are provided below:

1. Eudaimonic, hedonic, hedonic pleasure, and hedonic comfort orientations positively relate to well-being experiences and outcomes while they predominantly negatively relate to negative affect in a meta-analytic level.

2. Eudaimonic orientation is stronger in the positive associations than other types of orientations in a meta-analytic level.

3. Eudaimonic, hedonic pleasure, and hedonic comfort orientations demonstrate consistent latent mean scores and psychometric properties across WEIRD and non-WEIRD countries, gender groups, and age categories.

4. Eudaimonic orientation increases need satisfaction via psychological flexibility, subsequently contributing to both meaning in life and life satisfaction.

Theoretical and methodological basis. The present research draws on the HEEMA model (Veronika Huta), Self-Determination Theory (Edward L. Deci, Richard M. Ryan), Basic Psychological Needs Theory (Edward L. Deci, Richard M. Ryan, Maarten Vansteenkiste), the Eudaimonic Activity Model (Kennon M. Sheldon, Frank Martela), the Hexaflex Model (Steven C. Hayes, Kirk D. Strosahl, Kelly G. Wilson, Jaci L. Rolffs, Ronald D. Rogge), and related constructs based on the comprehensive literature review. The main methods are as follows:

Study 1:

1) Self-Reported Hedonic and Eudaimonic Activities Scale (SHEA) (Huta, 2005)

2) Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives for Activities Scale (HEMA) (Huta & Ryan, 2010)

3) Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives for Activities Scale-Revised (HEMA-R) (Huta, 2016a)

4) Hedonic, Eudaimonic, and Extrinsic Motives for Activities Scale (HEEMA) (LeFebvre & Huta, 2021)

All details and analyses in this study and 77 measures included in the meta-analyses can be found on the following link:

https://osf.io/iem3p/?view only=49bef9deb2e4422e94ba3c2e977ae951

Study 2:

1) Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives for Activities Scale-Revised (HEMA-R) (Huta, 2016a)

All details of analyses in this study can be found on the following link: https://osf.io/iem3p/?view only=49bef9deb2e4422e94ba3c2e977ae951

Study 3:

1) Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives for Activities Scale-Revised (HEMA-R) (Huta, 2016a; adapted by Subasi et al., 2025)

2) Multidimensional Existential Meaning Scale (MEMS) (George & Park, 2017; adapted by Subasi et al., 2024a)

3) Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) (Diener et al., 1985; Köker, 1991)

4) Balanced Measure of Psychological Needs Scale (BMPNS) (Sheldon & Hilpert, 2012; Kardas & Yalcin, 2018)

5) Multidimensional Psychological Flexibility Inventory-24 (MPFI-24) (Rolffs et al., 2018; adapted by Subasi, 2023)

All details of analyses in this study can be found on the following link: https://osf.io/iem3p/?view only=49bef9deb2e4422e94ba3c2e977ae951

Validity and reliability. Psychometric features of the instruments used are provided below. The first study utilized meta-analytic data using 125 samples extracted from 85 studies across 22 countries in 16 languages. The second study used the HEMA-R across six

countries (i.e., Russia, Japan, Turkiye, Canada, Portugal, Greece). The third study employed measures of well-being orientations, well-being experiences and outcomes (i.e., life satisfaction, meaning in life, need satisfaction), and psychological flexibility. The psychometric properties of these measures were provided in the following subheading. The first study followed American Psychological Association (APA) Quantitative Meta-Analysis Article Reporting Standards in the meta-analyses, and data were gathered by search on Scopus and Web of Science until 15 April, 2024 as well as contacts for unpublished or published research not indexed on Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). The second study collected data in the countries listed through collaborations. The third study gathered data through a cross-sectional study using convenience sampling. The first study used Jamovi 2.6.13 and JASP 0.18.1.0 to conduct meta-analyses and moderator analyses. The second study utilized Jamovi 2.6.13 to analyze descriptive statistics and Mplus 8.11 to perform confirmatory factor analyses, multigroup confirmatory factor analyses, and alignment optimization method. The third study employed the SPSS 23 and the SPSS PROCESS Macro to carry out correlational and serial mediation analyses. All studies were conducted in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.

Other variables. As this dissertation conducted meta-analyses, moderator analyses in meta-analyses, cross-cultural research, and cross-sectional research, there were a range of instruments apart from the measures in the previous subheading. The list of all measures used in this dissertation can be found through the following link on the Open Science Framework (OSF) (see the Files section on the link): https://osf.io/jem3p/?view only=49bef9deb2e4422e94ba3c2e977ae951

Sample characteristics. The first study (N = 61199) included an international metaanalysis study including adults, college students, adolescents, and children. The second study (N = 2593) consisted of either college students or adults across diverse countries. The third study (N = 291) employed adults.

Scientific novelty. The first study meta-analytically investigates how well-being orientations are linked to well-being experiences and outcomes. Furthermore, it analyzes the roles of moderators in these links. This is the first and most comprehensive meta-analytic study to examine these phenomena in the literature in an international level. The second study examines whether well-being orientations demonstrate the same latent scores across WEIRD and non-WEIRD countries by multi-group measurement invariance analyses of country, gender, and age variables. The second study is the first study to test the psychometric properties of the HEMA-R across diverse cultures by WEIRD and non-WEIRD samples from six countries, age categories, and gender groups. The third study aims to discover whether psychological flexibility can play important roles in translating eudaimonic orientation into beneficial well-being outcomes. Connecting the HEEMA, the EAM, and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) literature, the third study is the first study to integrate these approaches in the relevant literature. Overall, each study has unique contributions to the literature.

Theoretical importance. The international meta-analysis in the first study offers the first and most comprehensive synthesis of associations between well-being orientations (eudaimonic, hedonic, hedonic pleasure, hedonic comfort, and extrinsic) and well-being experiences and outcomes across diverse cultural contexts. This study contributes to resolving inconsistencies in the previous literature by quantifying effect sizes and identifying a substantial number of moderators while underlining the need for culturally sensitive approaches to well-being orientations, experiences, and outcomes. It advances the HEEMA framework by validating key distinctions between hedonic pleasure and comfort orientations and elucidating eudaimonic orientation has most strongly positive associations with well-being experiences and outcomes. The meta-analysis demonstrates robust evidence for distinct yet complementary positive roles of eudaimonic/hedonic/hedonic pleasure/hedonic comfort well-being orientations in connection with well-being experiences and outcomes. It notably indicates these results across WEIRD and non-WEIRD cultures, combining cross-

cultural evidence. It explores that country-level, cultural, methodological, socioeconomic, and demographic variables significantly moderate the direction and magnitude of the associations observed, suggesting contextual and cultural factors play important roles in shaping the connections. These findings indicate the distinctiveness of eudaimonia and hedonia, different positive roles of hedonic and eudaimonic types of orientations, and the stronger role of eudaimonic orientation in the associations compared to other types orientations, offering robust meta-analytic evidence for the main propositions of the HEEMA. The second study establishes the cross-cultural validity of the HEMA-R, the first systematic measurement invariance research across WEIRD and non-WEIRD cultures, age categories, and gender groups. Complementing the first study, the second study shows the HEMA-R is universally applicable. This research demonstrates cultural nuances in the interpretation of certain items across diverse cultures (almost full metric invariance) and age groups (almost full scalar invariance) while indicating full scalar invariance across gender groups. The second study offers a refined framework for future cross-cultural research in well-being orientations and a theoretical revision in hedonic comfort constructs in some contexts. Outsmarting the theoretical challenge in research, the third study integrates the HEEMA and the EAM by indicating the role of psychological flexibility between eudaimonic orientation and well-being outcomes (i.e., life satisfaction, meaning in life) through need satisfaction drawing on SDT. This integration offers a theoretical perspective that the current literature lacks in the context of the HEEMA, paving the way for further theoretical perspectives on individual well-being.

Practical importance. The results demonstrate that pursuing eudaimonic, hedonic, hedonic pleasure, and hedonic comfort orientations bring about positive well-being experiences and outcomes across diverse cultural contexts. Well-being orientations are measurable across cultures. Eudaimonic orientation enhances need satisfaction and well-being outcomes via psychological flexibility. These findings carry important practical applications for various domains. The results obtained from the three studies of the present

dissertation in a broad sense suggest that well-being interventions - from personalized programs to therapy, education, public policy and global sustainability initiatives - can be effectively developed, tested, and scaled across individuals, communities, and nations. By bridging foundational empirical evidence, cross-cultural support, and theoretical integration with practical implementation, the present dissertation offers actionable insights for promoting well-being at individual, organizational, educational, policy, and societal levels.

Research results and thesis submitted to defense:

1) Well-being orientations promote positive well-being experiences and outcomes such as positive affect, life satisfaction, meaning in life, and flourishing, and attenuate negative emotions based on the meta-analytic evidence, emphasizing their dual function in well-being.

2) Eudaimonic and hedonic types of well-being orientations are distinct yet complementary pathways to well-being, each uniquely contributing to well-being experiences and outcomes.

3) Eudaimonic orientation has the most consistent and strongest links with well-being experiences and outcomes, demonstrating greater predictive strength than other orientations.

4) Well-being orientations receive robust methodological support across diverse cultures and demographic factors, supporting generalizability.

5) Eudaimonic orientation, in combination with psychological flexibility, predicts need-satisfying experiences, and consequently greater meaning in life and life satisfaction.

Structure and volume of the dissertation. The dissertation consists of introduction, three chapters, and references (see the appendices and the list of abbreviations on the OSF link). The dissertation text is 164 pages. The list of references contains 360 citations. The dissertation text involves 11 tables and 5 figures. Additional tables and figures are available online on the OSF link. Overall volume is 206 pages.

Approbation and discussion. The findings of the dissertation research were presented and discussed during meetings of the doctoral seminars in accordance with the specialty code 19.00.01 (General Psychology, Personality Psychology, History of Psychology) at the Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University), and at the International Laboratory of Positive Psychology of Personality and Motivation at HSE University. Certain findings of the dissertation research were presented and discussed at the following conferences: "Psychology of the 21st Century: Science as Freedom and Creativity" (St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg State University, 2023), "Young People and Science: Results and Perspectives" (Saratov, Saratov State Medical University, 2023), "Seljuk 9th International Conference on Social Sciences" (Konya, 2023), "Ege 10th International Conference on Social Sciences" (Izmir, 2023), and "Ege 12th International Conference on Social Sciences" (Izmir, 2024). Research within the scope of this dissertation were published and/or in press in journals listed in the Lists of Eligible Journals issued by HSE University.

Published articles:

1) Subasi M. (2024). From motives to optimal functioning: The beneficial role of self-concordance in crafting a good life. Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology, 13(4), 74-85. https://doi.org/10.17759/jmfp.2024130407

2) Subasi M., & Osin E.N. (2024). The essence of authentic pursuits: Intrinsic value-goal concordance matters. Psikhologicheskie Issledovaniya, 17(97), 7. https://doi.org/10.54359/ps.v17i97.1660

3) Subasi M., & Osin E.N. (2024). Adaptation of the hedonic and eudaimonic motives for activities-revised (HEMA-R) scale among Russian-speaking respondents. Psikhologicheskie Issledovaniya, 17(98), 2. https://doi.org/10.54359/ps.v17i98.1707

4) Subasi, M. (2024). Psychometric properties of the three dimensional meaning in life scale (3DM) among Turkish-speaking adults. Turkish Psychological

Counseling and Guidance Journal, Vol. 14, No. 75, 509-522. https://doi.org/10.17066/tpdrd.1409199

5) Subasi, M., Bulut, S., Karaman, H. & Osin, E.N. (2024). Multidimensional meaning in life: Turkish validation of the 3DM using a bifactor model. Cyprus Turkish Journal of Psychiatry & Psychology, 6(3): 51-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35365/ctipp.24.L06

6) Subasi, M., Huta, V., & Osin, E. N. (2025). Hedonic vs. eudaimonic ways of living on the path to well-being and psychological distress: Turkish validation of HEMA-R. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal, 15(77), 376392. https://doi.org/10.17066/tpdrd.1515439

Summary of the dissertation. Chapter 1 presents historical perspectives to well-being, the emergence of positive psychology and its inheritance of previous developments, current approaches to well-being, common and distinct elements of well-being, antecedents and outcomes of well-being, issues in well-being approaches and research, well-being orientations, the HEEMA approach, and reasons for a series of three interconnected research on meta-analytic, cross-cultural, and theoretical integration contexts in this dissertation. The first empirical study analyzes the associations between well-being orientations (eudaimonic, hedonic, hedonic pleasure, hedonic comfort, and extrinsic) and well-being experiences and outcomes (e.g., life satisfaction, positive affect, elevation, carefreeness) in a meta-analytic level through 125 samples from 85 studies across 22 countries and 16 languages with a total of 61199 participants. This study conducted a total of 102 meta-analyses. 82 meta-analyses were for the associations between well-being orientations and experiences/outcomes while 15 meta-analyses were performed for the scale correlations and 5 meta-analyses were carried out for the scale means. Furthermore, this study conducted 18 meta-analyses to see the effects of outliers, and 18 moderator analyses performed for each meta-analysis based on the number of studies included in each meta-analytic relationship, which corresponds to 1152 moderator analyses. The second empirical study tests the cross-cultural equivalence of well-

being orientations through the assessment of psychometric properties of the HEMA-R across three WEIRD (i.e., Canada, Portugal, Greece) and three non-WEIRD (i.e., Russia, Japan, Turkiye) countries with a total of 2593 participants (i.e., either college students or adults) by confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs), multi-group confirmatory factor analyses (MG-CFAs), and alignment optimization methods. This study further examines the measurement invariance of the HEMA-R across age categories and gender groups. The third and final empirical study investigates whether the HEEMA and the EAM can be integrated in the context of ACT and SDT. It supports the conceptual model in which eudaimonic orientation leads to psychological flexibility, conducing to need satisfaction, further paving the way for life satisfaction and meaning in life. Chapter 3 summarizes the findings of the three studies conducted and main conclusions of the present dissertation.

Заключение диссертации по теме «Другие cпециальности», Субаши Мустафа

Заключение

Концепция и стремление к благополучной жизни остаются одной из самых давних психологических и философских задач человечества. Настоящая диссертация прослеживает историческую фрагментацию, чтобы установить синтезированное, глобально применимое и эмпирически обоснованное понимание путей к благополучной жизни. Переходя от эмпирических исследований к глобальным принципам, результаты дают окончательное сообщение относительно оптимального функционирования для полноценного и осмысленного существования. Основной вывод, сделанный из этой исчерпывающей исследовательской программы, заключается в следующем: хотя удовольствие и комфорт являются необходимыми питательными элементами, дополняющими благополучную жизнь, эвдемоническая ориентация представляет собой фундаментальный и самый сильный двигатель устойчивого и долгосрочного благополучия, особенно при условии, что индивиды развивают/используют позитивные психологические ресурсы, необходимые для преодоления трудностей этого пути.

Первым ключевым выводом, основанным на международном синтезе результатов, является уточнение отчетливых и взаимодополняющих ролей эвдемонической и гедонической ориентаций, что разрешает противоречия в литературе, копившиеся десятилетиями. Эмпирические данные свидетельствуют о том, что эвдемоническая ориентация последовательно связана с наиболее устойчивыми позитивными результатами по различным показателям, включая личностный рост, смысл жизни, воодушевление и психологическое благополучие. Теоретически такое превосходство объясняется тем, что эвдемонический фокус направлен на долгосрочное мышление/инвестирование, следование абстрактным ценностям и превосходству, а также соблюдение подлинности и целостности личности, что приводит к более автономному и осмысленному опыту. Тем временем гедонистические стремления (удовольствие и комфорт) играют важные, но отчетливо

дополнительные роли. Хотя они позитивно влияют на различные показатели, включая беззаботность и позитивный аффект, они чаще всего служат краткосрочным освежением и эмоциональным восполнением внутри личности. Примечательно, что различие между удовольствием (поиск веселья/наслаждения) и комфортом (поиск легкости/расслабления) уточняет рамки, принятые в диссертации, демонстрируя, что удовольствие в целом более полезно, чем комфорт, который иногда может быть связан с отрицательными или смешанными результатами. Данные также указывают на то, что эти ориентации зависят от культуры и контекста. Чем более благополучна культура (т.е. условия человеческого развития, удовлетворены основные потребности, обеспечена безопасность), тем более гедонически ориентированы ее граждане; чем менее благополучна культура (например, проблемы с угрозами безопасности, дефицитом, выживанием), тем больше ее граждане ориентированы на власть, деньги и славу.

Послание очевидно: стремление к удовольствию и комфорту предлагает краткосрочные выгоды, но построение устойчивой основы для процветающей жизни требует приоритета смысла, роста, превосходства и вклада в жизнь других. Эвдемония обеспечивает пути к лучшей жизни, тогда как гедония помогает людям предотвращать выгорание и перфекционизм и поддерживать свою энергию для эвдемонических путешествий. Однако, хотя эвдемония является высшей индивидуальной формой процветания, коллективная способность к ее достижению зависит от факторов на уровне культуры, таких как общественная стабильность и изобилие ресурсов. Если общество не может обеспечить индивидов условиями для самореализации, граждане направляются в менее конструктивные и часто деструктивные формы деятельности как заменители внутренней осмысленности и безопасности. В противном случае, ресурсы для эвдемонии, вероятно, будут потребляться конкуренцией за базовые ресурсы, что разрушает социальное доверие и вызывает коллективную усталость, поскольку граждане не имеют фундаментальных условий для гедонистических

возможностей и автономии для роста. Мудрое общество должно создавать условия для самореализации, позволяя своим гражданам выйти за рамки борьбы за власть, славу и деньги, тем самым развивая пространство для процветания как индивидуального превосходства, так и коллективного благополучия. Пути к процветающей жизни на уровне общества — это вопрос возможностей и условий.

Второй крупный вклад заключается в демонстрации кросс-культурной и контекстуальной применимости этих ориентаций. Исследование подтверждает, что ориентации на удовольствие, комфорт и эвдемонию надежно измеряются и являются согласованными в самых разнообразных национальных и культурных контекстах, включая страны Запада и Востока, а также в разных возрастных и гендерных группах. Это подтверждение доказывает, что ориентации понимаются глобально, хотя они могут по-разному интерпретироваться индивидами и формироваться под влиянием их среды. Таким образом, кросс-культурные данные свидетельствуют о том, что при понимании/оценке ориентаций необходимо учитывать культурно-чувствительные и контекстуальные условия.

Наконец, третий крупный вклад касается действенности: как эвдемоническая ориентация трансформируется в благоприятные результаты. Исследование предполагает, что эвдемония должна сочетаться с психологической гибкостью. В нем представлена интегративная структура, демонстрирующая благотворное влияние эвдемонической ориентации на положительные результаты благополучия через психологическую гибкость и удовлетворение базовых психологических потребностей. Психологическая гибкость — набор навыков, позволяющих оставаться вовлеченным в деятельность, управляемую ценностями, несмотря на наличие сложных мыслей или эмоций, — имеет решающее значение для эвдемонии в действии, позволяя индивидам посвятить себя саморазвитию. Индивиды могут испытывать трудности с настойчивостью в достижении своих эвдемонических идеалов, сталкиваясь с дискомфортом или трудностями. Для содействия человеческому процветанию, будь то

посредством коучинга, психотерапии или крупномасштабных кампаний в области общественного здравоохранения, усилия должны быть сосредоточены не только на том, что включает в себя благополучная жизнь, но и на обучении тому, как эффективно ее достигать посредством психологической гибкости.

Взятая в целом, эта диссертация продвигает науку о благополучии и оптимальном функционировании к более зрелой и интегративной дисциплине. Установив количественные эмпирические основы, подтвердив кросс-культурные измерения и наметив теоретическую перспективу, она предлагает практические и широко применимые идеи для развития процветания как на индивидуальном, так и на общественном и планетарном уровнях. Конечная идея состоит в том, что индивиды ориентированы на рост и смысл, и, расставляя приоритеты в эвдемонии, балансируя гедонию, развивая адаптивные навыки и получая поддержку от своих обществ, они приобретают психологический и социальный потенциал для устойчивой и по-настоящему осмысленной жизни. Таким образом, они могут способствовать как индивидуальному процветанию, так и коллективному благополучию в разнообразном мире.

Список литературы диссертационного исследования кандидат наук Субаши Мустафа, 2026 год

Список литературы

1. Aghababaei, N., & Tekke, M. (2018). The relations among well-being outcomes and motives, religiosity, and personality factors in Malaysian Muslim university students. Journal of Research and Health, 8(6), 565-571. http://doi.org/10.29252/jrh.8.6.565

2. American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (Fifth edition, text revision). American Psychiatric Association.

3. Andrews, F.M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-2253-5

4. Anic, P. (2014). Hedonic and eudaimonic motives for favourite leisure activities. PrimenjenaPsihologija, 7(1), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.19090/pp.2014.1.5-21

5. Anic, P., & Toncic, M. (2013). Orientations to happiness, subjective well-being and life goals. Psihologijske Teme, 22(1), 135-153. https://hrcak.srce.hr/100702

6. Asano, R., Igarashi, T., & Tsukamoto, S. (2014). The Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives for Activities (HEMA) in Japan: The pursuit of well-being. Shinrigaku Kenkyu: The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 85(1), 69-79. https://doi.org/10.4992/jjpsy.85.69

7. Asano, R., Igarashi, T., & Tsukamoto, S. (2020). The hedonic and eudaimonic motives for activities: Measurement invariance and psychometric properties in an adult Japanese sample. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 524894. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01220

8. Asano, R., Tsukamoto, S., Igarashi, T., & Huta, V. (2021). Psychometric properties of measures of Hedonic and Eudaimonic Orientations in Japan: The HEMA scale. Current Psychology, 40, 390-401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9954-z

9. Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 397-438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008204

10. Asparouhov, T., & Muthen, B. (2014). Multiple-group factor analysis alignment. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(4), 495-508. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.919210

11. Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 338. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.120.3.338

12. Bandhu, D., Mohan, M. M., Nittala, N. A. P., Jadhav, P., Bhadauria, A., & Saxena, K. K. (2024). Theories of motivation: A comprehensive analysis of human behavior drivers. ActaPsychologica, 244, 104177. https://doi.org/10.1016/jactpsy.2024.104177

13. Baselmans, B. M., & Bartels, M. (2018). A genetic perspective on the relationship between eudaimonic-and hedonic well-being. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 14610. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-32638-1

14. Bauer, J. J., & Weatherbie, K. J. (2023). The quiet ego and human flourishing. Journal of Happiness Studies, 24(8), 2499-2530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-023-00689-5

15. Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, 50(4), 1088-1101. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533446

16. Behzadnia, B., & Ryan, R.M. (2018). Eudaimonic and hedonic orientations in physical education and their relations with motivation and wellness. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 49, 363-385. http://doi.org/10.7352/IJSP.2018.49.363

17. Behzadnia, B., Kiani, A., & Babaei, S. (2020). Autonomy-supportive exercise behaviors promote breast cancer survivors' well-being. Health Promotion Perspectives, 10(4), 409. https://doi.org/10.34172/hpp.2020.60

18. Belliotti, R. A. (2004). Happiness is overrated. Rowman & Littlefield.

19. Bernecker, K., Becker, D., & Guobyte, A. (2025). High self-control individuals prefer meaning over pleasure. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506251323948

20. Berridge, K. C., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2011). Building a neuroscience of pleasure and well-being. Psychology of Well-Being: Theory, Research and Practice, 1, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1186/2211-1522-1-3

21. Berrios, R., Totterdell, P., & Kellett, S. (2018). When feeling mixed can be meaningful: The relation between mixed emotions and eudaimonic well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19, 841-861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9849-y

22. Betanzos, J. C. M., Maldonado, P. M. M., Solís, K. J. C., Flores, P. Y. A., Martínez, K. A. O., & López, J. D. T. (2024). Propiedades psicométricas de la Escala de Motivación Hedónica, Eudaimónica y Extrínseca para actividades (HEEMA) en una muestra sonorense. In C. C. Castillo, A. P. Ruiz-Celis, M. L. P. Gómez, & N. A. R. Romero (Eds.), Investigación actual en psicología social (pp. 923-935). Universidad de Guadalajara.

23. Beugelsdijk, S., & Welzel, C. (2018). Dimensions and dynamics of national culture: Synthesizing Hofstede with Inglehart. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(10), 1469-1505. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022118798505

24. Bond, F. W., & Flaxman, P. E. (2006). The ability of psychological flexibility and job control to predict learning, job performance, and mental health. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 26(1-2), 113-130. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v26n01 05

25. Boniwell, I., & Henry, J. (2007). Developing conceptions of well-being: Advancing subjective, hedonic and eudaimonic theories. Social Psychological Review, 9(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsspr.2007.9.1.3

26. Borenstein, M. (2019). Common mistakes in meta-analysis. Biostat Inc.

27. Borenstein, M. (2023). How to understand and report heterogeneity in a meta-analysis: the difference between I-squared and prediction intervals. Integrative Medicine Research, 101014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imr.2023.101014

28. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons.

29. Borenstein, M., Higgins, J. P., Hedges, L. V., & Rothstein, H. R. (2017). Basics of meta-analysis: I2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Research Synthesis Methods, 8(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1230

30. Bozdemir, M. (2023). Psychometric properties of the Turkish translation of the Hedonic, Eudaimonic, and Extrinsic Motives for Activities scale (HEEMA) [Unpublished data].

31. Braaten, A., & Huta, V. (2016). A preliminary exploration of how worldviews relate to eudaimonic and hedonic orientations. International Journal of Existential Psychology and Psychotherapy, 7(2), 11.

32. Braaten, A., Huta, V., Tyrany, L., & Thompson, A. (2019). 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, 3(2), 179-196.

33. Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Aldine Publishing Company.

34. Bradshaw, E. L., Conigrave, J. H., Steward, B. A., Ferber, K. A., Parker, P. D., & Ryan, R. M. (2023a). A meta-analysis of the dark side of the American dream: Evidence for the universal wellness costs of prioritizing extrinsic over intrinsic goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 124(4), 873. https://doi/10.1037/pspp0000431

35. Bradshaw, E. L., DeHaan, C. R., Parker, P. D., Curren, R., Duineveld, J. J., Di Domenico, S. I., & Ryan, R. M. (2023b). The perceived conditions for living well: Positive

perceptions of primary goods linked with basic psychological needs and wellness. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 18(1), 44-60.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2021.1991446

36. Brandstätter, V., Herrmann, M., & Schüler, J. (2013). The struggle of giving up personal goals affective, physiological, and cognitive consequences of an action crisis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(12), 1668-1682. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213500151

37. Brief, A. P., Butcher, A. H., George, J. M., & Link, K. E. (1993). Integrating bottom-up and top-down theories of subjective well-being: The case of health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 646-653. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.646

38. Brown, N. J., & Rohrer, J. M. (2020). Easy as (happiness) pie? A critical evaluation of a popular model of the determinants of well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21, 1285-1301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00128-4

39. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford publications.

40. Bryant, F. B. (2021). Current progress and future directions for theory and research on savoring. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 771698. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.771698

41. Bujacz, A., Vitters0, J., Huta, V., & Kaczmarek, L. D. (2014). Measuring hedonia and eudaimonia as motives for activities: cross-national investigation through traditional and Bayesian structural equation modeling. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 984. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00984

42. Busseri, M. A. (2015). Toward a resolution of the tripartite structure of subjective well-being. Journal of Personality, 83(4), 413-428. https://doi.org/10.1111/iopy.12116

43. Busseri, M. A. (2025). Informing the structure of subjective well-being using preregistered intervention studies. Journal of Happiness Studies, 26(4), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-025-00892-6

44. Busseri, M. A., & Sadava, S. W. (2011). A review of the tripartite structure of subjective well-being: Implications for conceptualization, operationalization, analysis, and synthesis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(3), 290-314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310391271

45. Butler, J., & Kern, M. L. (2016). The PERMA-Profiler: A brief multidimensional measure of flourishing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.5502/iiw.v6i3.526

46. Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Sage.

47. Cabrera, V., & Donaldson, S. I. (2024). PERMA to PERMA+ 4 building blocks of well-being: a systematic review of the empirical literature. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 19(3), 510-529. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2023.2208099

48. Cantril, H. (1965). The pattern of human concerns. Rutgers University Press.

49. Carr, A., Finneran, L., Boyd, C., Shirey, C., Canning, C., Stafford, O., ... & Burke, T. (2024). The evidence-base for positive psychology interventions: a mega-analysis of meta-analyses. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 19(2), 191-205. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2023.2168564

50. Casari, C. A., Romano, A. R., Peixoto, E. M., Guerra, V. M., & Zanini, D. S. (2025). Motivaçoes Hedônicas, Eudaimônicas e Extrínsecas para prática de exercício físico:

modelo de medida e redes nomológicas. Psicología, Conocimiento y Sociedad, 15(1), 1-16. https://doi.Org/10.26864/pcs.v15.n1.4

51. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464-504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834

52. Chen, H., & Zeng, Z. (2021). When do hedonic and eudaimonic orientations lead to happiness? Moderating effects of orientation priority. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(18), 9798. https://doi.org/10.3390/iierph18189798

53. Chen, H., & Zeng, Z. (2022). 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, 13, 948768. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.948768

54. Chen, H., & Zeng, Z. (2023a). Longitudinal well-being through the pursuit of hedonia and eudaimonia: inhibition and enhancement of eudaimonic behavior. Current Psychology, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04857-x

55. Chen, H., & Zeng, Z. (2023b). Seeking pleasure is good, but avoiding pain is bad: Distinguishing hedonic approach from hedonic avoidance orientations. Journal of Happiness Studies, 24(7), 2377-2393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-023-00687-7

56. Chen, H., & Zeng, Z. (2024). Happiness motives and mental health mediated by mastery behavior and smartphone addiction: Variable-centered and person-centered approaches. Personality and Individual Differences, 222, 112575. https://doi.org/10.1016/jpaid.2024.112575

57. Chen, H., & Zeng, Z. (2025). Belief in a just world fosters the pursuit of eudaimonia and tolerance of pain through future orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 240, 113166. https://doi.org/!0.1016/j.paid.2025.113166

58. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233-255. https://doi.org/10. 1207/S15328007SEM0902 5

59. Choi, D., Kimura, M., Kihara, K., Akamatsu, M., Hosono, M., Sugimoto, F., ... & Sato, T. (2025). Pathways from eudaimonic and hedonic motives to life satisfaction via response style. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 11282. http://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-95601-x

60. Chu, J. T., & Koo, M. (2023). Life satisfaction and self-esteem in older adults engaging in formal volunteering: A cross-sectional study in Taiwan. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(6), 4934. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20064934

61. Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50(12), 975-990. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1993.01820240059008

62. Cochran, W. G. (1954). The x2 test of goodness of fit. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 23, 315-345. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177729380

63. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(4), 668-678. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.4.668

64. Coyne, J. C. (2013). Highly correlated hedonic and eudaimonic well-being thwart genomic analysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(45), E4183-E4183. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1315212110

65. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

66. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2013). Flow: The psychology of happiness. Random House.

67. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Abuhamdeh, S. & Nakamura, J. (2005). Flow. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 598-608). New York: Guilford Press.

68. Cui, P., Shen, Y., Hommey, C., & Ma, J. (2021). The dark side of the pursuit of happiness comes from the pursuit of hedonia: The mediation of materialism and the moderation of self-control. Current Psychology, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02104-9

69. Curlee, M. S., & Ahrens, A. H. (2023). An exploratory analysis of the Ignatian examen: Impact on self-transcendent positive emotions and eudaimonic motivation. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 18(5), 733-742. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2022.2109197

70. Davidov, E., Meuleman, B., Cieciuch, J., Schmidt, P., & Billiet, J. (2014). Measurement equivalence in cross-national research. Annual Review of Sociology, 40(1), 5575. https://doi.org/10. 1146/annurev-soc-071913 -043137

71. De Neve, J.-E., Diener, E., Tay, L., & Xuereb, C. (2013) The objective benefits of subjective well-being. In Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (Eds.), World happiness report 2013 (pp. 2-35). UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network.

72. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: An introduction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9018-1

73. Delle Fave, A. (2021). Eudaimonic and hedonic happiness. In F. Maggino (ed.) Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 1-7). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69909-7 3778-2

74. Delle Fave, A., & Bassi, M. (2009). The contribution of diversity to happiness research. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(3), 205-207. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760902844319

75. Delle Fave, A., Brdar, I., Freire, T., Vella-Brodrick, D., & Wissing, M. P. (2011). The eudaimonic and hedonic components of happiness: Qualitative and quantitative findings. Social Indicators Research, 100, 185-207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9632-5

76. DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986). Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 7(3), 177-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2

77. Dettori, J. R., Norvell, D. C., & Chapman, J. R. (2022). Fixed-effect vs random-effects models for meta-analysis: 3 points to consider. Global Spine Journal, 12(7), 16241626. https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682221110527

78. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542

79. Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901 13

80. Diener, E., & Tov, W. (2012). National accounts of well-being. In K. C. Land, A. C. Michalos, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of social indicators and quality of life research (pp. 137-157). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2421-1 7

81. Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Oishi, S. (2002). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and life satisfaction. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), The handbook of positive psychology (pp. 63-74). New York: Oxford University Press.

82. Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Tay, L. (Eds.). (2018a). Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers.

83. Diener, E., Sandvik, E., & Pavot, W. (2009b). Happiness is the frequency, not the intensity, of positive versus negative affect. In E. Diener (Ed.), Assessing well-being (pp. 213-231). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2354-4 10

84. Diener, E., Scollon, C. N., & Lucas, R. E. (2009a). The evolving concept of subjective well-being: The multifaceted nature of happiness. In E. Diener (Ed.), Assessing well-being: The collected works of Ed Diener (pp. 67-100). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2354-4 4

85. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276-302. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276

86. Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97, 143-156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y

87. Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., & Kashdan, T. B. (2025). The hierarchical framework of well-being (HiFWB). Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1515423. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1515423

88. Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., Kashdan, T. B., Short, J. L., & Jarden, A. (2016). Different types of well-being? A cross-cultural examination of hedonic and

eudaimonic well-being. Psychological Assessment, 28(5), 471. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000209

89. Dong, R., Wang, Y., Wei, C., Hou, X., Ju, K., Liang, Y., & Xi, J. (2023). A new factor "Otherism" added to the Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives for Activities Scale (HEMA) in Chinese culture. Behavioral Sciences, 13(9), 746. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13090746

90. Doorley, J. D., Goodman, F. R., Kelso, K. C., & Kashdan, T. B. (2020). Psychological flexibility: What we know, what we do not know, and what we think we know. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 14(12), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12566

91. Dunning, D. (2011). The Dunning-Kruger effect: On being ignorant of one's own ignorance. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 44, pp. 247-296). Academic Press.

92. Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455463. https://doi.org/10.1111/i.0006-341X.2000.00455.x

93. Egger, M., Davey Smith, G., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in metaanalysis detected by simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315(7109), 629-634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmi.315.7109.629

94. Enríquez-Negrete, D. J., Baez, L., Medina, R. S., & Arias-García, B. D. (2024). Propiedades psicométricas de la Escala de Motivos Hedónicos y Eudaimónicos de Actividades (HEMA-R) en Mexicanos y Colombianos. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación Psicológica, 1(71), 149-167. https://doi.org/10.21865/RIDEP71.L11

95. Feist, G. J., Bodner, T. E., Jacobs, J. F., Miles, M., & Tan, V. (1995). Integrating top-down and bottom-up structural models of subjective well-being: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 138-150. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.L138

96. Ferguson, L. J., Kowalski, K. C., Mack, D. E., Wilson, P. M., & Crocker, P. R. (2012). Women's health-enhancing physical activity and eudaimonic well being. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 83(3), 451-463. http://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2012.10599880

97. Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. SAGE.

98. Fordyce, M. W. (1988). A review of research on the happiness measures: A sixty second index of happiness and mental health. Social Indicators Research, 20, 355-381. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00302333

99. Fowers, B. J., Carroll, J. S., Leonhardt, N. D., & Cokelet, B. (2021). The emerging science of virtue. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(1), 118-147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620924473

100. Frankl, V. E. (1985). Man's search for meaning. Simon and Schuster.

101. Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions?. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 300-319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.300

102. Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). Positive emotions broaden and build. In P. Devine & A. Plant (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 1-53). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00001-2

103. Fredrickson, B. L., Grewen, K. M., Coffey, K. A., Algoe, S. B., Firestine, A. M., Arevalo, J. M., ... & Cole, S. W. (2013). A functional genomic perspective on human well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(33), 13684-13689. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1305419110

104. Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156-168. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847202

105. Gable, S. L., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and Why) is Positive Psychology? Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 103-110. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.103

106. Gallagher, M. W., Lopez, S. J., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). The hierarchical structure of well-being. Journal of Personality, 77(4), 1025-1050. https://doi.org/10.1111/i.1467-6494.2009.00573.x

107. Gaudreau, P., Schellenberg, B. J. I., Gareau, A., Kljajic, K., & Manoni-Millar, S. (2022). Because excellencism is more than good enough: On the need to distinguish the pursuit of excellence from the pursuit of perfection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(6), 1117-1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000411

108. Genecov, M., Blyler, A., Love, N., & Seligman, M. E. (2024). The history of happiness in academic psychology. In K. Barclay, D. McMahon, & P. N. Stearns (Eds.), The Routledge history of happiness (pp. 389-407). Routledge.

109. Gentzler, A. L., DeLong, K. L., Palmer, C. A., & Huta, V. (2021). Hedonic and eudaimonic motives to pursue well-being in three samples of youth. Motivation and Emotion, 45, 312-326. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s 11031-021 -09882-6

110. George, L. S., & Park, C. L. (2017). The multidimensional existential meaning scale: A tripartite approach to measuring meaning in life. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(6), 613-627. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1209546

111. Gignac, G. E., & Szodorai, E. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 74-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/jpaid.2016.06.069

112. Gilson, E. (2019). History of Christian philosophy in the Middle Ages. Catholic University of America Press.

113. Giuntoli, L., Condini, F., Ceccarini, F., Huta, V., & Vidotto, G. (2021). The different roles of hedonic and eudaimonic motives for activities in predicting functioning and well-being experiences. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22, 1657-1671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-020- 00290-0

114. Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (1996). Statistical methods in education and psychology. Allyn & Bacon.

115. Gorski, M. R., Krys, K., Park, J. (2024). First happiness, then meaning. A cross-cultural investigation into well-being dilemmas. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2024.2417108

116. Gosselin, C. A., Huta, V., & Braaten, A. (2022). Eudaimonic orientation enhances the well-being experienced by fathers. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 17(4), 2117-2138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-021-10020-0

117. Grayling, A. C. (2019). The history of philosophy. Penguin UK.

118. Grimm, C., Kemp, S., & Jose, P. E. (2015). Orientations to happiness and the experience of everyday activities. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(3), 207-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.941382

119. Gutas, D. (2024). Ibn Sina [Avicenna]. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2024 Edition). Retrieved from https: //plato. stanford.edu/ archives/win2024/entries/ibn-sina/

120. Hansenne, M. (2021). Valuing happiness is not a good way of pursuing happiness, but prioritizing positivity is: A replication study. Psychologica Belgica, 61(1), 306. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.1036

121. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.

122. Hayes, S. C., & Duckworth, M. P. (2006). Acceptance and commitment therapy and traditional cognitive behavior therapy approaches to pain. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 13(3), 185-187. https://doi.org/10 1016/i .cbpra.2006.04.002

123. Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2011). Acceptance and commitment therapy: The process and practice of mindful change. Guilford press.

124. Henderson, L. W., Knight, T., & Richardson, B. (2014). The hedonic and eudaimonic validity of the orientations to happiness scale. Social Indicators Research, 115, 1087-1099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0264-4

125. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

126. Heshmati, S., Kibrislioglu Uysal, N., Kim, S. H., Oravecz, Z., & Donaldson, S. I. (2023). Momentary PERMA: An adapted measurement tool for studying well-being in daily life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 24(8), 2441-2472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-023-00684-w

127. Higgins, E. T. (2012). Regulatory focus theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, W. A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), The handbook of theories of social psychology: Volume 1 (pp. 483-504). Sage Publications Ltd.

128. Hofmann, S. G., & Hayes, S. C. (2019). The future of intervention science: Process-based therapy. Clinical Psychological Science, 7(1), 37-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702618772296

129. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

130. Hohm, A., Happel, O., Hurtienne, J., & Grundgeiger, T. (2022). User experience in safety-critical domains: a survey on motivational orientations and psychological need satisfaction in acute care. Cognition, Technology & Work, 24(2), 247-260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111 -022-00697-0

131. Hong, E. K., Kim, J., & Choi, I. (2025). Mapping of meaning and pleasure on the temporal horizon: Long-term orientation predicts preference for meaningful over pleasurable activities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 55(2), 274-293. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.3142

132. Howell, A. J., & Demuynck, K. M. (2021). Psychological flexibility and psychological inflexibility are independently associated with both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 20, 163-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjcbs.2021.04.002

133. Howell, A. J., & Demuynck, K. M. (2023). Psychological flexibility and the Eudaimonic Activity Model: Testing associations among psychological flexibility, need satisfaction, and subjective well-being. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 27, 6571. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjcbs.2022.12.002

134. Howell, A. J., Brnada, M. F., & Buro, K. (2024). Further evidence in support of psychological flexibility as a model of eudaimonic activity. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 33, 100802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2024.100802

135. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

136. Huedo-Medina, T. B., Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., & Botella, J. (2006). Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index?. Psychological Methods, 11(2), 193. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.193

137. Humphrey, A., Szoka, R., & Bastian, B. (2022). When the pursuit of happiness backfires: The role of negative emotion valuation. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 17(5), 611-619. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2021.1897869

138. Huppert, F. A., & So, T. T. (2013). Flourishing across Europe: Application of a new conceptual framework for defining well-being. Social Indicators Research, 110, 837861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9966-7

139. Huta, V. (2005). Pursuing pleasure versus growth and excellence: Links with different aspects of well-being [Doctoral dissertation]. McGill University.

140. Huta, V. (2012). Linking peoples' pursuit of eudaimonia and hedonia with characteristics of their parents: Parenting styles, verbally endorsed values, and role modeling. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 47-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-011-9249-7

141. Huta, V. (2013 a). Pursuing eudaimonia versus hedonia: Distinctions, similarities, and relationships. In A. S. Waterman (Ed.), The best within us: Positive psychology perspectives on eudaimonia (pp. 139-158). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14092-008

142. Huta, V. (2013b). Eudaimonia. In S. David, I. Boniwell, & AC Ayers (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of happiness (pp. 201-213). Oxford University Press.

143. Huta, V. (2015). The complementary roles of eudaimonia and hedonia and how they can be pursued in practice. In S. Joseph (Ed.), Positive psychology in practice: Promoting human flourishing in work, health, education, and everyday life, (pp. 159-182). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118996874.ch10

144. Huta, V. (2016a). Eudaimonic and Hedonic Orientations: Theoretical Considerations and Research Findings. In J. Vitters0 (Ed.), Handbook of eudaimonic well-

being (pp. 215-231). Springer International Publishing/Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42445-3 15

145. Huta, V. (2016b). An overview of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being concepts. In L. Reinecke & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Handbook of media use and well-being (pp. 14-33). Routledge.

146. Huta, V. (2018). Eudaimonia versus hedonia: What is the difference? And is it real. In: Special Issue: Proceedings of the 2016 Meaning Conference. International Journal of Existential Positive Psychology (Vol. 8).

147. Huta, V. (2022). How distinct are eudaimonia and hedonia? It depends on how they are measured. Journal of Well-Being Assessment, 4(3), 511-537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41543-021 - 00046-4

148. Huta, V. (2024). Introducing a model of healthy hedonic functioning, and demonstrating its distinctness from eudaimonic functioning (psychological well-being) [Manuscript in preparation].

149. Huta, V., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Pursuing pleasure or virtue: The differential and overlapping well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 735-762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9171-4

150. Huta, V., & Waterman, A. S. (2014). Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia: Developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 1425-1456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9485-0

151. Huta, V., Pelletier, L. G., Baxter, D., & Thompson, A. (2012). How eudaimonic and hedonic motives relate to the well-being of close others. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7(5), 399-404. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2012.705318

152. Huynh, A. C., Oakes, H., Shay, G. R., & McGregor, I. (2017). The wisdom in virtue: Pursuit of virtue predicts wise reasoning about personal conflicts. Psychological Science, 28, 1848-1856. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0956797617722621

153. Ioannidis, J. P. (2008). Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity and bias in metaanalysis. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 14(5), 951-957. https://doi.org/10.1111/i.1365-2753.2008.00986.x

154. Jahoda, M. (1958). Current concepts of positive mental health. Basic Books.

155. Jia, N., Li, W., Zhang, L., & Kong, F. (2022). Beneficial effects of hedonic and eudaimonic motivations on subiective well-being in adolescents: A two-wave cross-lagged analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 17(5), 701-707. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2021.1913641

156. Jiang, J., Zeng, T., Zhang, C., & Wang, R. (2018). The mediating role of relatedness need satisfaction in the relationship between charitable behavior and well-being: Empirical evidence from China. International Journal of Psychology, 53(5), 349-355. https://doi.org/10.1002/iiop.12377

157. Joers, J., & De Luca, E. W. (2025). Examining the eudaimonic experience: Differences between well-being orientations regarding motivation, engagement, and basic psychological needs in interaction with AI. In T. X. Bui (Ed.), Proceedings of the 58th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 5995-6004). University of Hawaii Press.

158. Joshanloo, M. (2016). Revisiting the empirical distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being using exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17, 2023-2036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-015-9683-z

159. Joshanloo, M. (2018). Optimal human functioning around the world: A new index of eudaimonic well-being in 166 nations. British Journal of Psychology, 109(4), 637655. https://doi.org/10.1111/biop.12316

160. Joshanloo, M. (2024). Perceived functioning in evolutionarily important domains of life. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 18(4), 386-400. https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000335

161. Joshanloo, M., & Weijers, D. (2014). Aversion to happiness across cultures: A review of where and why people are averse to happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(3), 717-735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9489-9

162. Joshanloo, M., & Weijers, D. (2019). A two-dimensional conceptual framework for understanding mental well-being. PloS one, 14(3), e0214045. https://doi.org/10.1371/iournal.pone.0214045

163. Joshanloo, M., Jovanovic, V., & Park, J. (2021). Differential relationships of hedonic and Eudaimonic well-being with self-control and long-term orientation. Japanese Psychological Research, 63(1), 47-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/ipr.12276

164. Jovanovic, V., Rudnev, M., Aryanto, C. B., Balgiu, B. A., Caudek, C., Datu, J. A. D., ... & Zemojtel-Piotrowska, M. (2024). A cross-cultural evaluation of Diener's tripartite model of subjective well-being across 16 countries. Journal of Happiness Studies, 25(6), 82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-024-00781 -4

165. Kahneman, D., & Riis, J. (2005). Living, and thinking about it: Two perspectives on life. In F. A. Huppert, N. Baylis, & B. Keverne (Eds.), The science of well-being (pp. 285-304). Oxford University Press.

166. Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (Eds.) (1999). Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. Russell Sage Foundation.

167. Kardas, F., & Yalcin, I. (2018). An adaptation study of the Balanced Measure of Psychological Needs (BMPN) Scale to Turkish culture. Qukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 47(2). http://doi.org/10.14812/cuefd.408515

168. Kashdan, T. B., & Rottenberg, J. (2010). Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(7), 865-878. https://doi.org/10.1016/icpr.2010.03.001

169. Kashdan, T. B., Biswas-Diener, R., & King, L. A. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: The costs of distinguishing between hedonics and eudaimonia. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(4), 219-233. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760802303044

170. Kashdan, T. B., Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., Doorley, J. D., & McKnight, P. E. (2020). Understanding psychological flexibility: A multimethod exploration of pursuing valued goals despite the presence of distress. Psychological Assessment, 32(9), 829. https://doi/10.1037/pas0000834

171. Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American dream: Correlates of financial success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 410-422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.2410

172. Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(3), 280-287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296223006

173. Katz, L. D. (2016). Pleasure. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2016 ed.). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/pleasure/

174. Keyes, C. L. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43(2), 207-222. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090197

175. Keyes, C. L. (2016). Why Flourishing? In D. W. Howard (Ed.), Well-being and higher education: A strategy for change and the realization of education's greater purposes (pp. 99-107). Bringing Theory to Practice.

176. Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(2), 121-140. https://doi.org/10.2307/2787065

177. Keyes, C. L. M. (2007). Promoting and protecting mental health as flourishing: A complementary strategy for improving national mental health. American Psychologist, 62(2), 95-108. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.2.95

178. Keyes, C. L. M., & Annas, J. (2009). Feeling good and functioning well: Distinctive concepts in ancient philosophy and contemporary science. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(3), 197-201. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760902844228

179. Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: the empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 1007. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.1007

180. Khaw, D., & Kern, M. (2014). A cross-cultural comparison of the PERMA model of well-being. Undergraduate Journal of Psychology at Berkeley, University of California, 8(1), 10-23.

181. Khumalo, I. P., Wilson-Fadiji, A., & Brouwers, S. A. (2020). Well-being orientations and time perspective across cultural tightness-looseness latent classes in Africa. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21, 1681-1703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00151-5

182. Kinoshita, K., MacIntosh, E., & Sato, S. (2021). The effect of basic psychological needs satisfaction on intrinsic regulation is moderated by hedonic and eudaimonic motives: a longitudinal investigation among youth athletes in Japan. Physical Culture and Sport, 89(1), 34-44. http://doi.org/10.2478/pcssr-2021-0004

183. Kinoshita, K., Macintosh, E., & Sato, S. (2022a). Association of latent mental health profiles of military officers with active sport participation and hedonic and eudaimonic motives for sport participation. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 11(3), 353. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000291

184. Kinoshita, K., Macintosh, E., & Sato, S. (2022b). Thriving in youth sport: the antecedents and consequences. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20(2), 356-376. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2021.1877327

185. Kirsimâe, M. (2019). Estonian translation of Hedonic, Eudaimonic and Extrinsic Motives for Activities (HEEMA) [Unpublished data].

186. Koker, S. (1991). Normal ve sorunlu ergenlerin ya§am doyumu duzeyinin kar§ila§tmlmasi [Master's thesis]. Institute of Social Sciences, Ankara University.

187. Kopperud, K. H., & Vitters0, J. (2008). Distinctions between hedonic and eudaimonic well-being: Results from a day reconstruction study among Norwegian jobholders. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(3), 174-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760801999420

188. Koumantarou Malisiova, E., Mourikis, I., Darviri, C., Michou, M., Provi, K., Vlachakis, D., ... & Chrousos, G. P. (2021). Validation of the Greek version of Hedonic, Eudaimonic, and Extrinsic Motives for Activities (HEEMA) instrument. In P. Vlamos (Ed.), GeNeDis 2020: Geriatrics (pp. 137-147). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78771-4 16

189. Krasko, J., Intelisano, S., & Luhmann, M. (2022). When happiness is both joy and purpose: The complexity of the pursuit of happiness and well-being is related to actual well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 23(7), 3233-3261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-022-00541 -2

190. Krasko, J., Schweitzer, V. M., & Luhmann, M. (2020). Happiness goal orientations and their associations with well-being. Journal of Well-Being Assessment, 4, 121-162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41543-020-00029-x

191. Krys, K., Haas, B. W., Igou, E. R., Kosiarczyk, A., Kocimska-Bortnowska, A., Kwiatkowska, A., ... & Bond, M. H. (2023). Introduction to a culturally sensitive measure of Well-Being: Combining life satisfaction and interdependent happiness across 49 different cultures. Journal of Happiness Studies, 24(2), 607-627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-022-00588-1

192. Krys, K., Kostoula, O., van Tilburg, W. A. P., Mosca, O., Lee, J. H., Maricchiolo, F., Kosiarczyk, A., Kocimska-Bortnowska, A., Torres, C., Hitokoto, H., Liew, K., Bond, M. H., Lun, V. M.-C., Vignoles, V. L., Zelenski, J. M., Haas, B. W., Park, J., Vauclair, C.-M., Kwiatkowska, A., ... Uchida, Y. (2024). Happiness maximization is a WEIRD way of living. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231208367

193. Kryza-Lacombe, M., Tanzini, E., & O'Neill, S. (2019). Hedonic and eudaimonic motives: Associations with academic achievement and negative emotional states among urban college students. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20, 1323-1341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-9994-y

194. Kwon, Y., Choi, J., & Choi, I. (2024). The unhappy beliefs of happiness: Investigating the mechanisms underlying the links between negative hedonic beliefs and diminished well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 25(7), 97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-024-00804-0

195. Lai, W., Yang, Z., Mao, Y., Zhang, Q., Chen, H., & Ma, J. (2020). When do good deeds lead to good feelings? Eudaimonic orientation moderates the happiness benefits of prosocial behavior. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(11), 4053. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17114053

196. Lambert, L., Passmore, H. A., & Holder, M. D. (2015). Foundational frameworks of positive psychology: Mapping well-being orientations. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 56(3), 311. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000033

197. LeFebvre, A., & Huta, V. (2021). Age and gender differences in eudaimonic, hedonic, and extrinsic motivations. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22(5), 2299-2321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-020-00319-4

198. Leontiev, D. (2012). Anthropology of happiness: The state of well-being and

the way of joy. Social Sciences, 43(2), 93-104.

199. Leontiev, D. A. (2013). Personal meaning: A challenge for psychology. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(6), 459-470. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.830767

200. Leontiev, D. A. (2016). The concept of motive in AN Leontiev and the problem of motivation quality. Moscow University Psychology Bulletin Series, 14, 3-18.

201. Leontiev, D. A. (2025). Existential positive psychology as "Height Psychology": Toward a multidimensional view [Unpublished manuscript].

202. Li, W., Zhang, L., Jia, N., & Kong, F. (2021). Validation of the hedonic and eudaimonic motives for activities-revised scale in chinese adults. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(8), 3959. https://doi.org/10.3390/iierph18083959

203. Li, W., Zhang, L., Li, C., Zhu, N., Zhao, J., & Kong, F. (2022). Pursuing pleasure or meaning: A cross-lagged analysis of happiness motives and well-being in adolescents. Journal of Happiness Studies, 23(8), 3981-3999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-022-00576-5

204. Li, X., Dusseldorp, E., Su, X., & Meulman, J. J. (2020). Multiple moderator meta-analysis using the R-package Meta-CART. Behavior Research Methods, 52, 26572673. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01360-0

205. Lin, L., & Chan, H. W. (2020). The associations between happiness motives and well-being in China: The mediating role of psychological need satisfaction and frustration. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 540346. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02198

206. Lin, L., Hua, L., & Li, J. (2022). Seeking pleasure or growth? The mediating role of happiness motives in the longitudinal relationship between social mobility beliefs and well-being in college students. Personality and Individual Differences, 184, 111170. https://doi.org/10.1016/jpaid.2021.111170

207. Linley, P. A. (2009). Positive psychology (History). Lopez, S. J. (Ed.). (2011). In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), The encyclopedia of positive psychology (pp. 742-746). John Wiley & Sons.

208. Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2004). Positive psychology in practice. John Wiley & Sons.

209. Linley, P. A., Joseph, S., Harrington, S., & Wood, A. M. (2006). Positive psychology: Past, present, and (possible) future. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(1), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760500372796

210. Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Wood, A. M., Osborne, G., & Hurling, R. (2009). Measuring happiness: The higher order factor structure of subjective and psychological well-being measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(8), 878-884. https://doi.org/10.1016/jpaid.2009.07.010

211. Lomas, T., Case, B., Cratty, F. J., & VanderWheele, T. (2021). A global history of happiness. International Journal of Wellbeing, 11(4), 68-87. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v11i4.1457

212. Lomas, T., Padgett, R. N., Lai, A. Y., Pawelski, J. O., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2024b). A multidimensional assessment of global flourishing: Differential rankings of 145 Countries on 38 wellbeing indicators in the Gallup World Poll, with an accompanying principal components analyses of the structure of flourishing. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2024.2370538

213. Lomas, T., Pawelski, J. O., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2024a). A flexible map of flourishing: The dynamics and drivers of flourishing, well-being, health, and happiness. International Journal of Wellbeing, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.5502/iiw.v13i4.3665

214. Lyubomirsky, S., & Layous, K. (2013). How do simple positive activities increase well-being?. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(1), 57-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412469809

215. Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 111-131. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111

216. Martela, F. (2023). Self-determination theory as the science of eudaimonia and good living: Promoting the better side of human nature. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of self-determination theory (pp. 309-324).

217. Martela, F. (2025). What is positive psychological functioning?. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2025.2498130

218. Martela, F., & Sheldon, K. M. (2019). Clarifying the concept of well-being: Psychological need satisfaction as the common core connecting eudaimonic and subiective well-being. Review of General Psychology, 23(4), 458-474. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268019880886

219. Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. Van Nostrand Reinhold.

220. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346

221. Mauss, I. B., Savino, N. S., Anderson, C. L., Weisbuch, M., Tamir, M., & Laudenslager, M. L. (2012). The pursuit of happiness can be lonely. Emotion, 12(5), 908912. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025299

222. McAdams, D. P. (2015). The art and science of personality development. Guilford Publications.

223. McClelland, D. C. (1988). Human motivation. Cambridge University Press.

224. McMahan, E. A., & Estes, D. (2011). Hedonic versus eudaimonic conceptions of well-being: Evidence of differential associations with self-reported well-being. Social Indicators Research, 103, 93-108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9698-0

225. Mekler, E. D., & Hornb^k, K. (2016, May). Momentary pleasure or lasting meaning? Distinguishing eudaimonic and hedonic user experiences. In Proceedings of the 2016 chi conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 4509-4520). https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858225

226. Michalos, A. C. (1985). Multiple discrepancies theory (MDT). Social Indicators Research, 16, 347-413. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00333288

227. Michalos, A. C. (2015). Ancient views on the quality of life. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16525-7 1

228. Mirzaei, A., Shafiee Rad, H., & Burke, M. D. (2024). Interplay of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being motives with L2 learners' resilience and mindfulness. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 12(4), 211-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2024.2443460

229. Mise, T.-R., & Busseri, M.A. (2020). The full life revisited: Examining hedonia and eudaimonia as general orientations, motives for activities, and experiences of wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 10(4), 74-86. https://doi.org/10.5502/iiw.v10i4.951

230. Moosivand, M., Kulemarzi, M. J. B., Shirazi, M. S., & Zaremohzzabieh, Z. (2024). Flexibility and inflexibility in an Iranian sample: psychometric properties of MPFI based on the Hexaflex model. BMC Psychology, 12(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01531-0

231. Morin, A. J., Myers, N. D., & Lee, S. (2020). Modern factor analytic techniques: Bifactor models, exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), and bifactor-ESEM. In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (pp. 1044-1073). Wiley.

232. Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). The Concept of Flow. M. Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.) Flow and the foundations of positive psychology: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, (pp. 239-263). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9088-8 16

233. Neugarten, B. L., Havighurst, R. J., & Tobin, S. S. (1961). The measurement of life satisfaction. Journal of Gerontology, 16, 134-143. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/16.2.134

234. Niemiec, R. M. (2013). VIA character strengths: Research and practice (The first 10 years). In H. H. Knoop & A. D. Fave (Eds.), Well-being and cultures: Perspectives from positive psychology (pp. 11-29). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-0074611-

235. Novak, L. F., Fowers, B. J., Kiknadze, N. C., & Calder, A. J. (2025). A close analysis of eight flourishing measures. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 20(1), 72-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2024.2322468

236. Novak, L., & Kiknadze, N. (2024). Does the good life feel good? The role of positive emotion in competing conceptions of the good life. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1425415. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1425415

237. Nussbaum, M. C. (2008). Who is the happy warrior? Philosophy poses questions to psychology. The Journal of Legal Studies, 37(S2), s81-s113. https://doi.org/10.1086/587438

238. Ortner, C. N., Corno, D., Fung, T. Y., & Rapinda, K. (2018). The roles of hedonic and eudaimonic motives in emotion regulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 209-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.09.006

239. Orwin, R. G. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8(2), 157-159. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986008002157

240. Osin, E. N., Voevodina, E. Y., & Kostenko, V. Y. (2023). A growing concern for meaning: Exploring the links between ego development and eudaimonia. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 958721. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.958721

241. Palmer, C. A., & Gentzler, A. L. (2019). Age-related differences in savoring across adulthood: The role of emotional goals and future time perspective. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20, 1281-1304. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s 10902-018-0001 -4

242. Park, N., Peterson, C., & Ruch, W. (2009). Orientations to happiness and life satisfaction in twenty-seven nations. The Journal of Positive Psychology 4(4), 273-279. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760902933690

243. Passmore, H. A., Howell, A. J., & Holder, M. D. (2018). Positioning implicit theories of well-being within a positivity framework. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19, 2445-2463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9934-2

244. Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2008). The satisfaction with life scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(2), 137-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760701756946

245. Pearce, K., & Huta, V. (2023). When are people willing to help others? Links with eudaimonic versus hedonic motives. Motivation and Emotion, 47(4), 524-537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-022-10004-z

246. Pearce, K., Huta, V., & Voloaca, M. (2021). How eudaimonic and hedonic orientations map onto seeing beyond the 'me, now, and tangible'. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 16(5), 610-621. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2020.1791943

247. Peifer, C., Wolters, G., Harmat, L., Heutte, J., Tan, J., Freire, T., ... & Triberti, S. (2022). A scoping review of flow research. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 815665. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.815665

248. Peterson, C. (2009). Positive psychology. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 18(2), 3.

249. Peterson, C., & Park, N. (2003). Positive psychology as the evenhanded positive psychologist views it. Psychological Inquiry, 14(2), 143-147. https://www.istor.org/stable/1449822

250. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.

251. Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. (2005). Orientations to happiness and life satisfaction: The full life versus the empty life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 25-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-004-1278-z

252. Peterson, C., Ruch, W., Beermann, U., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. (2007). Strengths of character, orientations to happiness, and life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(3), 149-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760701228938

253. Podber, N., & Gruenewald, T. L. (2025). Sociodemographic Disparities in Positive Life Experiences. Journal of Happiness Studies, 26(5), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-025-00870-y

254. Proctor, C., & Tweed, R. (2016). Measuring eudaimonic well-being. In J. Vitters0 (Ed.), Handbook of eudaimonic well-being (pp. 277-294). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42445-3 18

255. Ratchford, J. L., Cazzell, A. R., Wood, E., Owens, B., Quinn, R., & Schnitker, S. A. (2024). The virtue counterbalancing model: An illustration with patience & courage. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 19(3), 406-418. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2023.2178960

256. Richter, N., & Hunecke, M. (2021). The mindful hedonist? Relationships between well-being orientations, mindfulness and well-being experiences. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22(7), 3111-3135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-021-00358-5

257. Robitschek, C., & Keyes, C. L. M. (2009). Keyes's model of mental health with personal growth initiative as a parsimonious predictor. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(2), 321-329. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013954

258. Rolffs, J. L., Rogge, R. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2018). Disentangling components of flexibility via the hexaflex model: Development and validation of the Multidimensional Psychological Flexibility Inventory (MPFI). Assessment, 25(4), 458-482. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116645905

259. Romm, K. F., Park, Y. W., Hughes, J. L., & Gentzler, A. L. (2021). Risk and protective factors for changes in adolescent psychosocial adjustment during COVID-19. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(3), 546-559. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12667

260. Rowe, C. J., & Broadie, S. (Eds.). (2002). Nicomachean ethics. Oxford University Press.

261. Rucker, D. D., Preacher, K. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(6), 359-371. https://doi.org/10.1111/i1751-9004.2011.00355.x

262. Russell, B. (2015). The conquest of happiness. Routledge.

263. Russo-Netzer, P. (2019). Prioritizing meaning as a pathway to meaning in life and well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(6), 1863-1891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-0031 -y

264. Russo-Netzer, P., & Tarrasch, R. (2024). The path to life satisfaction in adolescence: life orientations, prioritizing, and meaning in life. Current Psychology, 43(18), 16591-16603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05608-8

265. Ryan, R. M. (2021). A question of continuity: a self-determination theory perspective on "third-wave" behavioral theories and practices. World Psychiatry, 20(3), 376. https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fwps.20885

266. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.L68

267. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). The darker and brighter sides of human existence: Basic psychological needs as a unifying concept. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 319-338. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104 03

268. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141-166. https://doi.org/10. 1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141

269. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (Vol. 2, pp. 3-33). University of Rochester Press.

270. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications.

271. Ryan, R. M., & Huta, V. (2009). Wellness as healthy functioning or wellness as happiness: The importance of eudaimonic thinking (response to the Kashdan et al. and Waterman discussion). The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(3), 202-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760902844285

272. Ryan, R. M., & Martela, F. (2016). Eudaimonia as a way of living: Connecting Aristotle with self-determination theory. In J. Vitters0 (Ed.), Handbook of eudaimonic well-being (pp. 109-122). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42445-3 7

273. Ryan, R. M., Duineveld, J. J., Di Domenico, S. I., Ryan, W. S., Steward, B. A., & Bradshaw, E. L. (2022). We know this much is (meta-analytically) true: A meta-review of meta-analytic findings evaluating self-determination theory. Psychological Bulletin, 148(11-12), 813. http://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000385

274. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069-1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069

275. Ryff, C. D. (2023). In pursuit of eudaimonia: Past advances and future directions. In M. L. Heras, M. G. Grau, & Y. Rofcanin (Eds.), Human flourishing: A multidisciplinary perspective on neuroscience, health, organizations and arts (pp. 9-31). Springer.

276. Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719-727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.694.719

277. Saunders, C., Huta, V., & Sweet, S. N. (2018). 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, 10(3), 347-367. https: //doi. org/10.1111 /aphw. 12136

278. Schele, I., Olby, M., Wallin, H., & Holmquist, S. (2021). Self-efficacy, psychological flexibility, and basic needs satisfaction make a difference: recently graduated psychologists at increased or decreased risk for future health issues. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 569605. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.569605

279. Schmitz, B., Burk, C. L., & Wiese, B. S. (2025). Enhancing Life Satisfaction through Eudaimonic, Hedonic, and Combined Interventions: New Training Approaches Relevant to Theory and Practice. Journal of Happiness Studies, 26(4), 60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-025-00872-w

280. Schnell, T. (2025). The psychology of meaning in life: Insights and applications (Second Edition). Routledge.

281. Schutte, N. S., & Malouff, J. M. (2019). The impact of signature character strengths interventions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(4), 1179-1196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-9990-2

282. Schwartz, S. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comparative Sociology, 5(2-3), 137-182. https://doi.org/10.1163/156913306778667357

283. Seligman, M. E. (2019). Positive psychology: A personal history. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 15(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095653

284. Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Positive psychology, positive prevention, and positive therapy. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook ofpositive psychology (pp. 3-9). Oxford University Press.

285. Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Free Press.

286. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5

287. Sezer, B., Riddell, H., Gucciardi, D. F., Sheldon, K. M., Sedikides, C., Vasconcellos, D., Jackson, B., Th0gersen-Ntoumani, C., & Ntoumanis, N. (2024). Goal motives, approach/avoidance appraisals, psychological needs, and well-being: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Motivation Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000366

288. Shafiee Rad, H., & Hashemian, M. (2023). Role of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being in second language learners' trait emotional intelligence and emotion regulation. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 38(4), 1619-1641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-022-00663-4

289. Sheibani, H., Sheibani, K. A., Amreei, N. N., & Masrour, M. J. (2019). An investigation of the effects of the acceptance and commitment therapy in groups on the cognitive strategies of emotion regulation and self-control in coronary heart disease patients. Journal of Medicine and Life, 12(4), 361. https://doi.org/10.25122%2Fjml-2019-0035

290. Sheldon, K. M. (2013). Individual daimon, universal needs, and subiective well-being: Happiness as the natural consequence of a life well lived. In A. S. Waterman (Ed.), The best within us: Positive psychology perspectives on eudaimonia (pp. 119-137). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14092-007

291. Sheldon, K. M. (2018). Understanding the good life: Eudaimonic living involves well-doing, not well-being. In J.R. Forgas & R.F. Baumeister (Eds.), The social psychology of living well (pp. 116-136). Routledge.

292. Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 482-497. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.3.482

293. Sheldon, K. M., & Hilpert, J. C. (2012). The balanced measure of psychological needs (BMPN) scale: An alternative domain general measure of need satisfaction. Motivation and Emotion, 36, 439-451. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s 11031-012-9279-4

294. Sheldon, K. M., & King, L. (2001). Why positive psychology is necessary. American Psychologist, 56(3), 216-217. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.216

295. Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2012). The challenge of staying happier: Testing the hedonic adaptation prevention model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(5), 670-680. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212436400

296. Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2019). Revisiting the sustainable happiness model and pie chart: Can happiness be successfully pursued?. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 16(2), 145-154. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2019.1689421

297. Sheldon, K. M., Corcoran, M., & Prentice, M. (2019). Pursuing eudaimonic functioning versus pursuing hedonic well-being: The first goal succeeds in its aim, whereas the second does not. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20, 919-933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-9980-4

298. Sirgy, M. J. (2012). The psychology of quality of life: Hedonic well-being, life satisfaction, and eudaimonia (Vol. 50). Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4405-9

299. Sirgy, M. J. (2021a). Effects of personality on wellbeing. In M. J. Sirgy (Ed.), The psychology of quality of life: Wellbeing andpositive mental health (pp. 207-221). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71888-6 9

300. Sirgy, M. J. (2021b). Positive outcomes of wellbeing. In M. J. Sirgy (Ed.), The psychology of quality of life: Wellbeing and positive mental health (pp. 59-78). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71888-6 3

301. Steger, M. F., & Shin, J. Y. (2012). Happiness and meaning in a technological age: A psychological approach. In P. Brey, A. Briggle, & E. Spence (Eds.), The good life in a technological age (pp. 92-108). New York, NY: Routledge.

302. Steger, M. F., Kashdan, T. B., & Oishi, S. (2008). Being good by doing good: Daily eudaimonic activity and well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(1), 22-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/urp.2007.03.004

303. 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

304. Subasi M., & Osin E.N. (2024). Adaptation of the hedonic and eudaimonic motives for activities-revised (HEMA-R) scale among Russian-speaking respondents. Psikhologicheskie Issledovaniya, 17(98), 2. https://doi.org/10.54359/ps.v17i98.1707

305. Subasi, M. (2023, December 15-17). Turkish Validation of the Multidimensional Psychological Flexibility Inventory-24 [Conference presentation]. Selcuk 9th International Conference on Social Sciences, Konya, Turkiye.

306. Subasi, M. (2024). From motives to optimal functioning: The beneficial role of self-concordance in crafting a good life. Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology, 13(4), 7485. https://doi.org/10.17759/imfp.2024130407

307. Subasi, M., Huta, V., & Osin, E. N. (2025). Hedonic vs. eudaimonic ways of living on the path to well-being and psychological distress: Turkish validation of HEMA-R. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal. https://doi.org/10.17066/tpdrd.1515439

308. Subasi, M., Karaman, H., Bulut, S., & Osin, E. N. (2024a). Turkish validation of the Multidimensional Existential Meaning Scale (MEMS): A bifactor model approach [Manuscript in preparation].

309. Subasi, M., Osin, E.N., Bulut, S., & Karaman, H. (2024b). The how that empowers every why: Autonomous goal motivation, meaning in life, psychological flexibility, and mental health outcomes [Manuscript in preparation].

310. Suh, E. M., & Oishi, S. (2002). Subiective well-being across cultures. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 10(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1076

311. Sun, W., Liu, L., Jiang, Y., Fang, P., Ding, X., & Wang, G. (2023b). Why are hedonists less happy than eudaimonists? The chain mediating role of goal conflict and mixed emotions. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1074026. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023. 1074026

312. Sun, W., Liu, L., Jiang, Y., Fang, P., Ding, X., & Wang, G. (2023a). Academics-athletics conflict and college athletes' well-being: The mediating effect of negative emotions and the moderating effect of life motivation. Behavioral Sciences, 13(2), 93. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13020093

313. Sun, W., Liu, L., Zheng, Z., Jiang, Y., & Fang, P. (2023c). Why eudemonia bring more happiness: The multiple mediating roles of meaning of life and emotions. Current Psychology, 42(22), 18749-18760. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03058-2

314. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

315. Thorsteinsen, K., & Vitters0, J. (2018). Striving for wellbeing: The different roles of hedonia and eudaimonia in goal pursuit and goal achievement. International Journal of Wellbeing, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v8i2.733

316. Thorsteinsen, K., & Vitters0, J. (2020). Now you see it, now you don't: Solid and subtle differences between Hedonic and Eudaimonic Wellbeing. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 15(4), 519-530. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2019.1639794

317. Toncic, M., & Anic, P. (2015). Everyday activities: Beneficial effects of eudaimonic and hedonic motivation on subjective well-being. Current Psychology 34, 644653. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-014-9277-7

318. Van de Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(4), 486-492. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.686740

319. van Halem, S., van Roekel, E., & Denissen, J. (2024a). Personality and individual differences in the relationship between hedonic and eudaimonic motives and well-being in daily life. Journal of Research in Personality, 110, 104497. https://doi.org/10.1016/urp.2024.104497

320. van Halem, S., van Roekel, E., & Denissen, J. (2024b). Understanding the dynamics of hedonic and eudaimonic motives on daily well-being: Insights from experience sampling data. Journal of Happiness Studies, 25(7), 107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-024-00812-0

321. Van Lange, P. A. M., Kruglanski, W. A., & Higgins, E. T. (Eds.) (2012). The handbook of theories of social psychology: Volume 2. Sage Publications.

322. Van Tongeren, D. R., Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., & Altman-Suchocki, M. (2025). Existential concerns, culture, context, and calibration: the 4C Model of virtue. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2025.2491456

323. van Zyl, L. E. (2025). Exploring potential solutions to the criticisms of positive psychology: Can the bold, idealistic visions of positive psychologists survive real-world scrutiny?. Frontiers in Psychology, 15(1511128), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1511128

324. van Zyl, L. E., Gaffaney, J., van der Vaart, L., Dik, B. J., & Donaldson, S. I. (2024). The critiques and criticisms of positive psychology: A systematic review. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 19(2), 206-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2023.2178956

325. Vansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R. M., & Soenens, B. (2020). Basic psychological need theory: Advancements, critical themes, and future directions. Motivation and Emotion, 44(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09818-1

326. Varga, B. A., Olah, A., Urban, R., Jakab, J., & Vargha, A. (2025). Assessing levels of flourishing: Diener's flourishing scale reveals greater insights into low flourishing in a Hungarian sample. Current Psychology, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-07356-3

327. Veenhoven, R. (2003). Hedonism and happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4(4), 437-457. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOHS.0000005719.56211.fd

328. Veenhoven, R. (2009). Sociological theories of subiective well-being. In M. Eid & R. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjective well-being: A tribute to Ed Diener (pp. 44-61). Guilford Publications.

329. Viechtbauer, W. (2005). Bias and efficiency of meta-analytic variance estimators in the random-effects model. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 30(3), 261-293. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986030003261

330. Vitters0, J. (2013). Feelings, meanings, and optimal functioning: Some distinctions between hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. In A. S. Waterman (Ed.), The best within us: Positive psychology perspectives on eudaimonia (pp. 39-55). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.

331. Vitters0, J. (2016). The most important idea in the world: An introduction. In J. Vitters0 (Ed.), Handbook of eudaimonic well-being (pp. 1-24). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42445-3 1

332. Vitters0, J. (2018). Do it! Activity theories and the good life. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being (pp. 182-199). DEF Publishers.

333. Vitters0, J. (2025). Humanistic wellbeing: Toward a value-based science of the good life. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-69292-5

334. Vitters0, J., S0holt, Y., Hetland, A., Thoresen, I. A., & R0ysamb, E. (2010). Was Hercules happy? Some answers from a functional model of human well-being. Social Indicators Research, 95, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9447-4

335. Walker, E., Hernandez, A. V., & Kattan, M. W. (2008). Meta-analysis: Its strengths and limitations. Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, 75(6), 431. https://doi.org/10.3949/ccjm.75.6.431

336. Wang, G., Sun, W., Liu, L., Jiang, Y., Ding, X., & Liu, Y. (2023). The role of eudaimonic motivation on the well-being of college athletes: the chain-mediating effect of meaning searching and meaning experience. Sustainability, 15(15), 11598. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511598

337. W^sowicz, G., Mizak, S., Krawiec, J., & Bialaszek, W. (2021). Mental health, well-being, and psychological flexibility in the stressful times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 647975. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.647975

338. Waterman, A. S. (1981). Individualism and interdependence. American Psychologist, 36(7), 762-773. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.7.762

339. Waterman, A. S. (1990). The relevance of Aristotle's conception of eudaimonia for the psychological study of happiness. Theoretical & Philosophical Psychology, 10(1), 39-44. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0091489

340. Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 678-691. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.678

341. Waterman, A. S. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: A eudaimonist's perspective. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(4), 234-252. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760802303002

342. Waterman, A. S., Schwartz, S. J., & Conti, R. (2008). The implications of two conceptions of happiness (hedonic enjoyment and eudaimonia) for the understanding of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 41-79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9020-7

343. Waterman, A. S., Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., Ravert, R. D., Williams, M. K., Bede Agocha, V., ... & Brent Donnellan, M. (2010). The Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Well-Being: Psychometric properties, demographic comparisons, and evidence of validity. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(1), 41-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760903435208

344. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

345. Whittingham, K., Wee, D., Sanders, M. R., & Boyd, R. (2013). Predictors of psychological adjustment, experienced parenting burden and chronic sorrow symptoms in parents of children with cerebral palsy. Child: Care, Health and Development, 39(3), 366373. https://doi.org/10.1111/U365-2214.2012.01396.x

346. Wilson Fadiji, A., & Khumalo, I. P. (2023). Family values and social well-being: Do motives for activities mediate?. Current Psychology 42(6), 5001-5014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01740-5

347. Wilt, J., & Revelle, W. (2017). Extraversion. In T. A. Widiger (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the Five Factor Model (pp. 57-82). Oxford University Press.

348. Winit, W., & Kantabutra, S. (2022). Enhancing the prospect of corporate sustainability via brand equity: A stakeholder model. Sustainability, 14(9), 4998. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14094998

349. Wong, P. T. P. (2021). Existential Positive Psychology (PP 2.0) and global wellbeing: why it is necessary during the age of COVID-19. International Journal of Existential Positive Psychology, 10(1), 1-16.

350. Wong, P. T., & Bowers, V. (2018). Mature happiness and global wellbeing in difficult times. In N. V. Silton (Ed.), Scientific concepts behind happiness, kindness, and empathy in contemporary society (pp. 112-134). IGI Global.

351. Wong, P. T., Arslan, G., Bowers, V. L., Peacock, E. J., Kjell, O. N. E., Ivtzan, I., & Lomas, T. (2021). Self-transcendence as a buffer against COVID-19 suffering: the development and validation of the self-transcendence measure-B. Frontiers in Psychology 12, 648549. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.648549

352. World Health Organization. (2024). ICD-11, the 11th Revision of the International Classification of Diseases. Retrieved from: https://icd.who.int/en (accessed February 13, 2025).

353. Wozniak, P. W., Hak, M., Kotova, E., Niess, J., Bentvelzen, M., Weingärtner, H., ... & Karolus, J. (2023, July). Quantifying meaningful interaction: Developing the Eudaimonic Technology Experience Scale. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (pp. 1904-1914). https://doi.org/10.1145/3563657.3596063

354. Yuliawati, L. (2024). Unveiling the veil: exploring how wellbeing motivations shape anonymous and public prosocial behavior in Indonesia. BMC Psychology, 12(1), 299. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01799-2

355. Zemojtel-Piotrowska, M., Piotrowski, J. P., Osin, E. N., Cieciuch, J., Adams, B. G., Ardi, R., ... & Maltby, J. (2018). The mental health continuum-short form: The structure and application for cross-cultural studies-A 38 nation study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 74(6), 1034-1052. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22570

356. Zeng, Z., & Chen, H. (2020). Distinct associations of hedonic and eudaimonic motives with well-being: Mediating role of self-control. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(15), 5547. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17155547

357. Zerwas, F. K., & Ford, B. Q. (2021). The paradox of pursuing happiness. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 39, 106-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/i.cobeha.2021.03.006

358. Zerwas, F. K., Ford, B. Q., John, O. P., & Mauss, I. B. (2024). Unpacking the pursuit of happiness: Being concerned about happiness but not aspiring to happiness is linked with negative meta-emotions and worse well-being. Emotion, 24(8), 17891802. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001381

359. Zhang, Q., Hou, Z., & Pan, R. (2024a). Climb trees to seek for fish: Hedonic motives do not bring you happiness [Unpublished manuscript].

360. Zhang, W., Balloo, K., Hosein, A., & Medland, E. (2024b). A scoping review of well-being measures: conceptualisation and scales for overall well-being. BMC Psychology, 12(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-02074-0