The Different Roles of Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives for Activities in Predicting Functioning and Well-Being Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract 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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".