The Role of Psychological Flexibility in the Eudaimonic Activity Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychological flexibility is made up of six processes that are characterized by flexibly embracing life events and acting in favour of personal values (Hayes et al., 2006). Self-determination theory proposes that meeting basic psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness culminates in well-being (Ryan et al., 2008). The Eudaimonic Activity Model (Martela & Sheldon, 2019) proposes that basic need satisfaction mediates the relationship between doing well (eudaimonic motives and activities) and feeling well (subjective well-being). In the present study, it is argued that psychological flexibility fits into the Eudaimonic Activity Model by providing a basis for measuring eudaimonic activity that predicts subjective well-being, mediated by need satisfaction. Participants (N = 281) from MacEwan University completed an online study assessing measures of psychological flexibility and inflexibility, need satisfaction, positive and negative affect, and life satisfaction. Mediational analyses revealed that basic need satisfaction was determined to mediate the relationship between psychological flexibility and subjective well-being (as measured by life satisfaction and positive and negative experiences), and separately, the relationship between psychological inflexibility and subjective well-being. These findings provide insight into the underlying mechanisms behind the positive impacts of psychological flexibility. Department: Psychology Faculty Mentor: Dr. Andrew Howell
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".