Heterogeneity in Prosocial Motivations and Well-Being: A Latent Profile Analysis

IF 3.7 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Journal of Happiness Studies Pub Date : 2026-05-05 DOI:10.1007/s10902-026-01051-1

Gen Li, Frank Fincham

{"title":"Heterogeneity in Prosocial Motivations and Well-Being: A Latent Profile Analysis","authors":"Gen Li, Frank Fincham","doi":"10.1007/s10902-026-01051-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Helping others improves well-being, but the reason for helping matters. This study examined individual differences in the relationship between prosocial motivation and well-being. A total of 399 undergraduate students (Mean age = 19.53, SD = 1.25) completed an online survey assessing six types of prosocial motivation, along with measures of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Latent profile analysis identified three prosocial profiles. The Idealistic Altruists (33%) showed the highest levels of altruistic motivation but low levels across the other five types of prosociality; the Instrumental Prosocials (25%) demonstrated higher levels of public prosocial motivation and moderate levels across the remaining types.; the Authentic Altruists (42%) exhibited high levels across five prosocial motivations but low levels of public prosociality. The three profiles did not differ significantly in hedonic well-being, whereas the Authentic Altruists reported greater eudaimonic well-being. These findings suggest that both altruistic and egoistic motivations are positively related to well-being, and that altruistic motivation rooted in integrated, self-congruent drives is more strongly associated with eudaimonic well-being.","PeriodicalId":15837,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Happiness Studies","volume":"122 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-05","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/s10902-026-01051-1","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

Helping others improves well-being, but the reason for helping matters. This study examined individual differences in the relationship between prosocial motivation and well-being. A total of 399 undergraduate students (Mean age = 19.53, SD = 1.25) completed an online survey assessing six types of prosocial motivation, along with measures of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Latent profile analysis identified three prosocial profiles. The Idealistic Altruists (33%) showed the highest levels of altruistic motivation but low levels across the other five types of prosociality; the Instrumental Prosocials (25%) demonstrated higher levels of public prosocial motivation and moderate levels across the remaining types.; the Authentic Altruists (42%) exhibited high levels across five prosocial motivations but low levels of public prosociality. The three profiles did not differ significantly in hedonic well-being, whereas the Authentic Altruists reported greater eudaimonic well-being. These findings suggest that both altruistic and egoistic motivations are positively related to well-being, and that altruistic motivation rooted in integrated, self-congruent drives is more strongly associated with eudaimonic well-being.

查看原文本刊更多论文

亲社会动机与幸福感的异质性：一个潜在剖面分析

帮助他人可以提高幸福感，但帮助的原因很重要。本研究考察了亲社会动机与幸福感之间关系的个体差异。共有399名本科生（平均年龄= 19.53,SD = 1.25）完成了一项在线调查，评估了六种类型的亲社会动机，以及快乐和幸福的测量。潜在特征分析确定了三种亲社会特征。理想主义利他主义者（33%）的利他动机水平最高，而其他五种类型的亲社会动机水平较低；工具性亲社会者（25%）表现出较高水平的公共亲社会动机，其余类型表现出中等水平的公共亲社会动机；真实利他主义者（42%）在五种亲社会动机中均表现出较高水平，但在公共亲社会动机中表现出较低水平。这三种情况在享乐幸福方面没有显著差异，而真正的利他主义者报告了更大的快乐幸福。这些发现表明，利他动机和利己动机都与幸福感呈正相关，而根植于综合、自我一致驱动的利他动机与幸福感的关系更为密切。

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?