Profile Membership of Self-Worth Contingencies Predicts Well-being, Virtues, and Values

IF 3.1 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Journal of Happiness Studies Pub Date : 2024-04-15 DOI:10.1007/s10902-024-00758-3

Elizabeth M. Bounds, Juliette L. Ratchford, Sarah A. Schnitker

{"title":"Profile Membership of Self-Worth Contingencies Predicts Well-being, Virtues, and Values","authors":"Elizabeth M. Bounds, Juliette L. Ratchford, Sarah A. Schnitker","doi":"10.1007/s10902-024-00758-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Historically, researchers have conceptualized self-esteem as global self-evaluation; recently, others have suggested that people are selective about what affects their self-worth. Two studies (N = 1,032) used a person-centered approach to examine how six domains of self-worth contingency associate with well-being, virtue, and value outcomes. Latent profile analyses indicated five distinct profiles. Non-contingents (lowest contingency in all domains) reported good well-being outcomes, low self-transcendence and self-enhancement values, and gave the least in a behavioral measure of generosity. Moral Contingents (high contingency in a moral domain; low contingency in other domains) reported the greatest well-being, purpose/meaning, performance virtues, and prosocial virtues, and high self-transcendence and low self-enhancement values. High Contingents (highest contingency in all domains) reported the worst well-being, second-highest others-focused compassion, and high self-transcendence and self-enhancement values. Medium Contingents (moderate contingency in all domains) reported the second-worst ill-being, second-highest purpose, second-highest performance and prosocial virtues, and high self-transcendent and self-enhancement values. Low Contingents (low contingency in all domains) reported the lowest purpose and basic needs satisfaction, and high self-enhancement and low self-transcendent values. Implications for optimal self-esteem and values are discussed.","PeriodicalId":15837,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Happiness Studies","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Happiness Studies","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-024-00758-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Historically, researchers have conceptualized self-esteem as global self-evaluation; recently, others have suggested that people are selective about what affects their self-worth. Two studies (N = 1,032) used a person-centered approach to examine how six domains of self-worth contingency associate with well-being, virtue, and value outcomes. Latent profile analyses indicated five distinct profiles. Non-contingents (lowest contingency in all domains) reported good well-being outcomes, low self-transcendence and self-enhancement values, and gave the least in a behavioral measure of generosity. Moral Contingents (high contingency in a moral domain; low contingency in other domains) reported the greatest well-being, purpose/meaning, performance virtues, and prosocial virtues, and high self-transcendence and low self-enhancement values. High Contingents (highest contingency in all domains) reported the worst well-being, second-highest others-focused compassion, and high self-transcendence and self-enhancement values. Medium Contingents (moderate contingency in all domains) reported the second-worst ill-being, second-highest purpose, second-highest performance and prosocial virtues, and high self-transcendent and self-enhancement values. Low Contingents (low contingency in all domains) reported the lowest purpose and basic needs satisfaction, and high self-enhancement and low self-transcendent values. Implications for optimal self-esteem and values are discussed.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

自我价值权变的特征成员预测幸福、美德和价值观

从历史上看，研究人员将自尊概念化为全面的自我评价；最近，另一些研究人员认为，人们对影响其自我价值的因素是有选择性的。有两项研究（N = 1,032 ）采用以人为本的方法，研究了自我价值的六个或然性领域如何与幸福、美德和价值结果相关联。潜在特征分析表明有五种不同的特征。非或然型（所有领域中的或然率最低）报告的幸福结果良好，自我超越和自我提升价值较低，在慷慨的行为测量中付出最少。道德特遣队员（在道德领域的或然率高；在其他领域的或然率低）在幸福感、目的/意义、表现美德和亲社会美德方面的表现最好，自我超越的价值高，自我提升的价值低。高或然率（所有领域中的最高或然率）报告的幸福感最差，关注他人的同情心次之，自我超越和自我完善价值观较高。中等特遣队（所有领域中的中等或然率）报告的幸福感次之，目的性次之，表现和亲社会美德次之，自我超越和自我提升价值高。低或然率（在所有领域中均为低或然率）报告的目的性和基本需求满意度最低，自我提升和自我超越价值观较高。本文讨论了最佳自尊和价值观的含义。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Happiness Studies Multiple-

CiteScore

8.60

自引率

6.50%

发文量

110

期刊介绍： The international peer-reviewed Journal of Happiness Studies is devoted to theoretical and applied advancements in all areas of well-being research. It covers topics referring to both the hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives characterizing well-being studies. The former includes the investigation of cognitive dimensions such as satisfaction with life, and positive affect and emotions. The latter includes the study of constructs and processes related to optimal psychological functioning, such as meaning and purpose in life, character strengths, personal growth, resilience, optimism, hope, and self-determination. In addition to contributions on appraisal of life-as-a-whole, the journal accepts papers investigating these topics in relation to specific domains, such as family, education, physical and mental health, and work. The journal welcomes high-quality theoretical and empirical submissions in the fields of economics, psychology and sociology, as well as contributions from researchers in the domains of education, medicine, philosophy and other related fields. The Journal of Happiness Studies provides a forum for three main areas in happiness research: 1) theoretical conceptualizations of well-being, happiness and the good life; 2) empirical investigation of well-being and happiness in different populations, contexts and cultures; 3) methodological advancements and development of new assessment instruments. The journal addresses the conceptualization, operationalization and measurement of happiness and well-being dimensions, as well as the individual, socio-economic and cultural factors that may interact with them as determinants or outcomes. Central Questions include, but are not limited to: Conceptualization: What meanings are denoted by terms like happiness and well-being? How do these fit in with broader conceptions of the good life? Operationalization and Measurement: Which methods can be used to assess how people feel about life? How to operationalize a new construct or an understudied dimension in the well-being domain? What are the best measures for investigating specific well-being related constructs and dimensions? Prevalence and causality Do individuals belonging to different populations and cultures vary in their well-being ratings? How does individual well-being relate to social and economic phenomena (characteristics, circumstances, behavior, events, and policies)? What are the personal, social and economic determinants and causes of individual well-being dimensions? Evaluation: What are the consequences of well-being for individual development and socio-economic progress? Are individual happiness and well-being worthwhile goals for governments and policy makers? Does well-being represent a useful parameter to orient planning in physical and mental healthcare, and in public health? Interdisciplinary studies: How has the study of happiness developed within and across disciplines? Can we link philosophical thought and empirical research? What are the biological correlates of well-being dimensions?