Self-Concordance Theory and the Goal-Striving Reasons Framework and Their Distinct Relationships With Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being.

IF 1.7 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Christian Ehrlich, Karen Cripps, Susanne Ehrlich
{"title":"Self-Concordance Theory and the Goal-Striving Reasons Framework and Their Distinct Relationships With Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being.","authors":"Christian Ehrlich, Karen Cripps, Susanne Ehrlich","doi":"10.1177/00332941241268557","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Self-concordance theory and the goal-striving reasons framework both measure the quality of people's reasons for their goal pursuits. Both have provided substantial evidence for their predictive power for people's well-being. However, it remains unclear which of the two goal-reason models is the better predictor for different forms of well-being. The paper analyses the distinct relationships of the two models in relation to hedonic well-being (Subjective Well-Being, Life Satisfaction, Affect Balance) and indicators of eudaimonic well-being (Basic Need Satisfaction, Purpose and Self-Acceptance). The findings are based on a cross-sectional, correlative research design based (<i>N</i> = 124). Using multiple regression analyses the results show that the goal-striving reasons framework is overall more strongly associated with hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. However, the differences for hedonic well-being as well as for self-acceptance and purpose are much larger than they are for the three basic needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Here, self-concordance achieves nearly similar correlations to the goal-striving reasons framework. The findings have implications for theory and practice as they highlight the theoretical differences between the two goal-reasons models but also help to decide which Positive Psychology Interventions are most suitable to increase which form of well-being.</p>","PeriodicalId":21149,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Reports","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941241268557","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Self-concordance theory and the goal-striving reasons framework both measure the quality of people's reasons for their goal pursuits. Both have provided substantial evidence for their predictive power for people's well-being. However, it remains unclear which of the two goal-reason models is the better predictor for different forms of well-being. The paper analyses the distinct relationships of the two models in relation to hedonic well-being (Subjective Well-Being, Life Satisfaction, Affect Balance) and indicators of eudaimonic well-being (Basic Need Satisfaction, Purpose and Self-Acceptance). The findings are based on a cross-sectional, correlative research design based (N = 124). Using multiple regression analyses the results show that the goal-striving reasons framework is overall more strongly associated with hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. However, the differences for hedonic well-being as well as for self-acceptance and purpose are much larger than they are for the three basic needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Here, self-concordance achieves nearly similar correlations to the goal-striving reasons framework. The findings have implications for theory and practice as they highlight the theoretical differences between the two goal-reasons models but also help to decide which Positive Psychology Interventions are most suitable to increase which form of well-being.

自我一致性理论和目标努力原因框架及其与享乐型和幸福型幸福的不同关系。
自我一致性理论和目标追求理由框架都是衡量人们追求目标的理由的质量。两者都提供了大量证据,证明它们对人们的幸福具有预测能力。然而,对于不同形式的幸福感而言,这两种目标-原因模型中哪一种预测效果更好,目前仍不清楚。本文分析了这两种模式在享乐型幸福感(主观幸福感、生活满意度、情感平衡)和快乐型幸福感指标(基本需求满足感、目的和自我接纳)方面的不同关系。研究结果基于一项横截面相关研究设计(N = 124)。通过多元回归分析,结果表明,总体而言,目标奋斗原因框架与享乐型幸福感和美满型幸福感的关联度更高。然而,享乐幸福感以及自我接纳和目标的差异要比自主、能力和亲情这三种基本需求的差异大得多。在这一点上,自我和谐与目标奋斗原因框架的相关性几乎相似。这些发现对理论和实践都有影响,因为它们强调了两种目标-原因模型之间的理论差异,同时也有助于决定哪种积极心理学干预措施最适合提高哪种形式的幸福感。
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
Psychological Reports
Psychological Reports PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
171
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信