Beyond Hedonism: Life Satisfaction Requires Autonomy Independent of Affect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hedonic and Eudaemonic theories offer distinct frameworks for understanding wellbeing—one focuses on affective experience, the other on psychological need fulfillment. However, it is unclear how much individuals consider hedonic and eudaemonic aspects in evaluations of their lives. This study examined how these components independently and jointly predict Life Satisfaction. Life Satisfaction was regressed on measures of positive and negative affect, as well as fulfillment of Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness needs. Confirmatory Factor Analysis in two general population samples was used to also control for measurement error Of Self- Determination Theory needs, only Autonomy uniquely predicted Life Satisfaction in addition to Positive Affect and Negative Affect. Competence and Relatedness were only predictive of Life Satisfaction in so far as they overlapped with hedonic factors. These findings suggest that hedonic and eudaemonic perspectives are distinct and complementary. Individuals are not merely hedonists and individuals rely on some eudaemonic factors in their life-evaluations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".