Explore the vast range of titles available.

This study assessed adults’ motivations in the pursuit of well-being at different ages across the adult lifespan, examining females and males separately. We studied four major well-being motivations: eudaimonic motivation (seeking meaning, authenticity, excellence, and growth), hedonic pleasure motivation (seeking pleasure, enjoyment, and fun), hedonic comfort motivation (seeking comfort, relaxation, ease, and painlessness) and extrinsic motivation (seeking money, power, status, popularity, and image). A sample of 1324 North American adults, aged 18–87, was stratified to ensure sufficient sample sizes at different age ranges and to ensure sufficient numbers of males and females within each age range. Participants completed the Hedonic, Eudaimonic, and Extrinsic Motives for Activities (HEEMA) scale, an updated version of the HEMA scale originally developed by Huta and Ryan (J Happiness Studi 11:735–762, 2010). For females, eudaimonic motivation increased until the 30s and did not change significantly thereafter; for males, eudaimonic motivation decreased from the 30s to the 40s, but then increased from the 40s to the 60s. For both genders, hedonic pleasure motivation decreased from the 30s onwards, though males scored significantly higher than females in the 20s. There was not much change in hedonic comfort motivation, except that it decreased from the 30s to the 50s in males. For both genders, extrinsic motivation decreased to the 60s, though males scored higher than females in the 20s and 30s. The results are interpreted in terms of gender roles, developmental theories, and biological changes.

Interest in eudaimonia (e.g., growth, meaning, authenticity, excellence) and its distinction from hedonia (e.g., pleasure, enjoyment, comfort, absence of distress) is growing rapidly, as researchers recognize that both concepts are central to the study of well-being. Yet research on these concepts faces challenges as well: findings based on different operationalizations can be quite discrepant; definitions of eudaimonia and hedonia sometimes fall into different categories of analysis (e.g. when eudaimonia is described as a way of functioning, hedonia as an experience); and the terms eudaimonia and hedonia are sometimes defined vaguely or applied to concepts that may be mere correlates. To aid in addressing these challenges, we propose the following terminology and classification for discussing conceptual and operational definitions: (1) degree of centrality—differentiating concepts that are core (i.e., definitional), close-to-core (i.e., given some attention but not central), and major correlates; (2) category of analysis—identifying which of the following categories a definition represents: (a) orientations (orientations, values, motives, and goals), (b) behaviors (behavioral content, activity characteristics), (c) experiences (subjective experiences, emotions, cognitive appraisals), (d) functioning (indices of positive psychological functioning, mental health, flourishing); and (3) level of measurement—identifying whether a definition is used for trait and/or state comparisons. The work of scholars with a program of research on eudaimonia or the distinction between eudaimonia and hedonia is reviewed and discussed within the framework of the proposed classification; several points of convergence and divergence across definitions are highlighted; and important questions and directions for future research are identified.

Research on hedonic and eudaimonic orientations has previously focused on their effects on well-being experiences. Very little is known about their associations with functioning. A preliminary objective of the study was to establish the factorial validity of the Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives for Activities–Revised (HEMA-R) on an Italian sample (N = 461) through a confirmatory factor analysis. The main objective was to study the distinctive patterns of correlates between different types of orientations to well-being and several outcome measures of positive experiences (flourishing, life satisfaction, positive affect), negative experiences (negative affect, depression, anxiety, stress) and functioning (dispositional coping strategies) by means of a multivariate linear model. The Italian version of the HEMA-R showed a three-factor structure, namely eudaimonic, pleasure, and relaxation orientations. Pleasure orientation was positively related to positive experiences of well-being and negatively related to negative experiences. Eudaimonic orientation was associated with positive experiences. Furthermore, eudaimonic orientation showed a positive relation with several adaptive coping strategies, whereas relaxation was associated with avoidant coping strategies. The results reflect that pleasure orientation is aimed at achieving pleasant feelings, while Eudaimonic orientation is aimed at living well. Our findings also suggest that pleasure orientation may reflect the “pursuit of pleasure” component of Hedonia, while relaxation orientation may reflect its “pain avoidance” component. Overall, this study supports the importance of distinguishing between Eudaimonia, and the pleasure and relaxation components of Hedonia to predict individual differences in subjective experiences and functioning.

Motives for hedonia (pleasure, fun) and eudaimonia (living life to one’s potential) underlie the universal pursuit of well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Yet, little is known about these motives in youth, despite their relevance for children and adolescents and the importance of understanding the development of well-being motives. In three samples of youth (Ns = 76, 152, and 142), we examined age differences in motives and tested hypotheses about how hedonic and eudaimonic motives would relate to several social and affective outcomes. Results showed some evidence for age differences (i.e. hedonic motives were higher in a sample of children aged 7–12 years compared to adolescents aged 14–18 years, and eudaimonic motives were positively correlated with age in 12–18 year olds). Consistent with hypotheses, hedonic motives related to both positive (fewer depressive symptoms, more frequent positive interpersonal events) and negative outcomes (e.g. less empathy and self-control), whereas eudaimonic motives were only associated with positive outcomes (e.g. greater well-being, self-control, empathy, self-worth, friendship closeness). Interactions between motives also indicated that hedonic motives may be more problematic when youth less frequently seek out eudaimonia. These studies offer novel and important information on the pursuit of well-being in youth.

The Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives for Activities (HEMA) scale measures well-being as a series of orientations. We investigated the HEMA scale’s psychometric properties among two Japanese samples in longitudinal studies over periods of one month (N = 385) and two months (N = 224). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses identified three subscales of the HEMA scale: hedonic pleasure orientation, hedonic relaxation orientation, and eudaimonic orientation. On average, at a given point in time, the correlations between subscales were r = .58 for the hedonic pleasure and hedonic relaxation orientations; r = .56 for the hedonic pleasure and eudaimonic orientations; and r = .26 for the hedonic relaxation and eudaimonic orientations—while the internal consistencies were αs > .80 for all subscales. In both studies, the three HEMA subscales had test-retest correlations averaging rs = .51, which suggests that these orientations are temporally quite stable, yet they are also amenable to change. Longitudinal analyses showed correlations between the HEMA scale and external criteria: hedonic pleasure orientation was associated with life satisfaction, positive affect, personal growth, purpose in life, and sense of meaning; hedonic relaxation orientation was associated with life satisfaction, positive affect, calm affect, and personal growth; and eudaimonic orientation was associated with life satisfaction, positive affect, personal growth, purpose in life, and sense of meaning. Implications for future research on the HEMA scale are discussed.

Variability is inevitable in human movement and posture, including piano performance, although little research has been conducted in this area. The purpose of this study was to determine if, when comparing individuals to themselves, pianists demonstrate consistent postural angles within a task across multiple measurements and to ascertain if, between various tasks, there are discernible task-related postural patterns. Fifteen pianists participated in this study. Each pianist returned for a total of three measurement sessions. The tasks they were required to perform at each session were quiet sitting, raising their hands on and off the keyboard, playing an ascending and descending scale, sight reading, and playing a piece in three expressive conditions (i.e., deadpan, projected, exaggerated). The following postural angles were calculated based on motion capture data collected during the performance of these tasks: craniovertebral angle, head tilt, head-neck-trunk angle, trunk angle, thoracic angle, thoracolumbar angle, and lumbar angle. The within-person variability ratio across the three measurements was calculated for each angle and across all tasks. Task-related patterns in angles were examined by comparing the same postural angle across different tasks. Results showed that there is a considerable amount of within-person variability, but not enough to be inconsistent over time. Task-related patterns indicate that reading a musical score or playing at the extreme ends of the keyboard tend to involve leaning closer to the instrument. Implications for future studies, intervention studies in particular, include taking more than a single baseline measurement to provide a more accurate picture of an individual pianist's typical posture.

Research programs examining psychological strengths and vulnerabilities have remained largely separate, making it difficult to determine the relative contributions of strengths and vulnerabilities to well-being. Two studies (241 normals, 54 depressed outpatients) compared certain psychological strengths (Transcendence subscales, Values In Action Inventory of Strengths) and cognitive vulnerabilities (Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale). In multiple regression, strengths usually related more to positive well-being—life satisfaction, positive affect, vitality, meaning, elevating experience—though vulnerabilities also related to the first three variables; vulnerabilities related more to illbeing—negative affect, depression—though hope, humor, enthusiasm, and forgiveness sometimes also showed relationships. Pre-treatment strengths (hope, spirituality, appreciation of beauty and excellence) predicted post-treatment recovery from depression; cognitive vulnerabilities did not. Strengths and vulnerabilities sometimes interacted, with strengths weakening the relationship between vulnerabilities and well-being. Our findings indicate that strengths and vulnerabilities are not mere opposites (correlating at most moderately) and deserve study as distinct contributors to well-being.

This study (N = 491) examined how hedonic orientation (prioritizing pleasure, comfort/painlessness) and eudaimonic orientation (prioritizing authenticity, excellence, growth) relate to behaviours that help or hinder others and to willingness to help others in different situations. We found that eudaimonic orientation related positively to helping others and negatively to hindering others, whereas hedonic orientation related positively to hindering others. Differences were found across helping situations such that eudaimonic orientation related to willingness to help others even when the results are in the future, the recipient cannot be seen, and the helping is personally costly, whereas hedonic orientation related to a preference to help others when the results are immediate, the recipient can be seen, and the helping is not personally costly. These findings support a characterization of eudaimonia as a focus on long-term, abstract, and big-picture concerns, and hedonia as a focus on immediate, concrete, and self-focused concerns.

This chapter summarizes the work of Veronika Huta and of researchers who have used her measure of eudaimonic and hedonic orientations, the HEMA (Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives for Activities). Huta and Waterman (2014) classified definitions of eudaimonia and hedonia into four categories – orientations (priorities, values, motives, goals), behaviors, experiences (affect, appraisals), and functioning (abilities, accomplishments, healthy habits). This chapter reports preliminary analyses showing that hedonic experiences (e.g., positive affect, carefreeness) formed a separate factor from eudaimonic experiences (e.g., feelings of meaning/value, accomplishment, interest); eudaimonic and hedonic orientations also formed distinct factors. Recently, Huta developed an expanded characterization of eudaimonia and hedonia in all four definition categories, including the cell that has heretofore been neglected – healthy hedonic functioning – to complement Ryff’s (1985) theory of eudaimonic functioning. In the recently updated HEMA, eudaimonia is defined as an orientation towards four elements: authenticity, meaning/broad concerns, excellence/morality, and growth/maturity; hedonia is defined as an orientation toward pleasure/satisfaction and comfort/ease. HEMA eudaimonic and hedonic orientations have correlated with somewhat different niches of personal well-being experience, need satisfaction, health behavior, and functioning; the combination of eudaimonic and hedonic orientations has related to higher scores on well-being than either pursuit alone. Eudaimonic pursuits have been linked with more positive contributions to others, society, and the environment. Only a eudaimonic orientation has related to abstract thinking and future time perspective. Finally, only eudaimonia has related to having parents who were responsive and demanding. The chapter concludes with philosophical thoughts on why eudaimonia and hedonia are both good, and how one pursuit is higher while the other is more fundamental.

Research on eudaimonia (seeking to use and develop the best in oneself) and hedonia (seeking pleasure, enjoyment, comfort), two dominant ways of pursuing the good life, has previously focused on their well-being consequences and correlates. Little is known about their predictors. Two retrospective studies with undergraduates began investigating the links between the behavior of one’s parents when one was a child, and the degree to which one pursues eudaimonia and/or hedonia and derives well-being from these pursuits. Study 1 (n = 105) showed that participants engaged in eudaimonic pursuits if their parents had been high on responsiveness and/or demandingness, the two dimensions that define positive parenting. Hedonic pursuits did not relate to either parenting dimension. Study 2 (n = 110) showed that people engaged in eudaimonic pursuits if their parents had either verbally endorsed eudaimonia or actually role modeled it by pursuing eudaimonia themselves. However, people derived well-being from eudaimonic pursuits only if their parents had role modeled eudaimonia, not if their parents had merely verbally endorsed it. The same pattern was found for engaging in hedonic pursuits and deriving well-being from them. It was also found that parents who role modeled eudaimonia had children who grew up to derive well-being not only from eudaimonia but also from hedonia. Parents who role modeled hedonia had children who grew up to derive well-being only from hedonia and not from eudaimonia.