Sofya Nartova-Bochaver, Alena Zolotareva, Elisa Delvecchio, Milana Khachaturova, Jian-Bin Li, Adriana Lis, Claudia Mazzeschi, Cecilia Mayorga Muñoz, Alexander T. Vazsonyi
{"title":"Are There Culture-Specific Patterns of Psychological Well-Being? The Role of Survival Versus Self-Realisation Values","authors":"Sofya Nartova-Bochaver, Alena Zolotareva, Elisa Delvecchio, Milana Khachaturova, Jian-Bin Li, Adriana Lis, Claudia Mazzeschi, Cecilia Mayorga Muñoz, Alexander T. Vazsonyi","doi":"10.1002/ijop.70096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Hedonic and eudaimonic well-being were studied depending on indicators of distress in countries with cultures differing in survival/self-realisation values. A total of 2216 respondents from Chile, China, Italy, Russia and the United States participated. The <i>Psychological Well-Being Scale</i>, the <i>Satisfaction With Life Scale,</i> and the <i>Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale</i> were used. Findings provided evidence that in countries with high survival values, the levels of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being were lower. Hedonic well-being across countries was negatively associated with depression and survival values; in addition, it was also negatively associated with stress based on analysis in the total sample. In countries characterised by self-realisation (Italy and the United States), eudaimonic well-being was negatively associated with depression only. In countries characterised by survival, observed links differed: In China, eudaimonic well-being was negatively associated with depression and stress, and in Russia, eudaimonic well-being was negatively associated with depression, but positively with stress. In the total sample, eudaimonic well-being was negatively associated with depression and anxiety and positively associated with sex (higher in women). The moderation effect of values and distress on well-being varied across countries.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48146,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Psychology","volume":"60 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijop.70096","RegionNum":3,"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
Hedonic and eudaimonic well-being were studied depending on indicators of distress in countries with cultures differing in survival/self-realisation values. A total of 2216 respondents from Chile, China, Italy, Russia and the United States participated. The Psychological Well-Being Scale, the Satisfaction With Life Scale, and the Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale were used. Findings provided evidence that in countries with high survival values, the levels of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being were lower. Hedonic well-being across countries was negatively associated with depression and survival values; in addition, it was also negatively associated with stress based on analysis in the total sample. In countries characterised by self-realisation (Italy and the United States), eudaimonic well-being was negatively associated with depression only. In countries characterised by survival, observed links differed: In China, eudaimonic well-being was negatively associated with depression and stress, and in Russia, eudaimonic well-being was negatively associated with depression, but positively with stress. In the total sample, eudaimonic well-being was negatively associated with depression and anxiety and positively associated with sex (higher in women). The moderation effect of values and distress on well-being varied across countries.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Psychology (IJP) is the journal of the International Union of Psychological Science (IUPsyS) and is published under the auspices of the Union. IJP seeks to support the IUPsyS in fostering the development of international psychological science. It aims to strengthen the dialog within psychology around the world and to facilitate communication among different areas of psychology and among psychologists from different cultural backgrounds. IJP is the outlet for empirical basic and applied studies and for reviews that either (a) incorporate perspectives from different areas or domains within psychology or across different disciplines, (b) test the culture-dependent validity of psychological theories, or (c) integrate literature from different regions in the world.