通过幸福、享乐和联合干预提高生活满意度:理论与实践相关的新培训方法

IF 3.1 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Bernhard Schmitz, Christian L. Burk, Bettina S. Wiese
{"title":"通过幸福、享乐和联合干预提高生活满意度:理论与实践相关的新培训方法","authors":"Bernhard Schmitz, Christian L. Burk, Bettina S. Wiese","doi":"10.1007/s10902-025-00872-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In recent scientific debates, eudaimonia and hedonia have been discussed as either complementary or opposing pathways to well-being. If they are opposites, a combination of the two would not have a positive effect. If they are complementary, their combination is of particular interest. Research to date has often been based on correlational designs that do not allow any conclusions to be drawn about causality. Therefore, we used randomized control designs not only to demonstrate the effectiveness of interventions for eudaimoina and hedonia but also to see whether or not a combination of hedonia and eudaimonia will lead to life satisfaction (full-life effectivity) or even outperforms single-component interventions (full-life superiority). Two randomized controlled studies were conducted with pre-, post- and follow-up measurements. In Study 1 (N = 265), we compared four groups: hedonia training, eudaimonia training, combined training and a control group. In Study 2 (N = 76), we compared three groups: eudaimonia training, combined training and a control group. Results showed positive effects on life satisfaction in the eudaimonia and hedonia groups. The combined training worked (full-life effectivity), although not more so than the single-component trainings (no full-life superiority). The expected mediating role of the art-of-living (a set of individual behavioral strategies) for training effects on life satisfaction was also supported. Results are discussed with reference to the synergetic change model, which offers further ideas to improve combined trainings.</p>","PeriodicalId":15837,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Happiness Studies","volume":"107 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Enhancing Life Satisfaction through Eudaimonic, Hedonic, and Combined Interventions: New Training Approaches Relevant to Theory and Practice\",\"authors\":\"Bernhard Schmitz, Christian L. Burk, Bettina S. Wiese\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10902-025-00872-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In recent scientific debates, eudaimonia and hedonia have been discussed as either complementary or opposing pathways to well-being. If they are opposites, a combination of the two would not have a positive effect. If they are complementary, their combination is of particular interest. Research to date has often been based on correlational designs that do not allow any conclusions to be drawn about causality. Therefore, we used randomized control designs not only to demonstrate the effectiveness of interventions for eudaimoina and hedonia but also to see whether or not a combination of hedonia and eudaimonia will lead to life satisfaction (full-life effectivity) or even outperforms single-component interventions (full-life superiority). Two randomized controlled studies were conducted with pre-, post- and follow-up measurements. In Study 1 (N = 265), we compared four groups: hedonia training, eudaimonia training, combined training and a control group. In Study 2 (N = 76), we compared three groups: eudaimonia training, combined training and a control group. Results showed positive effects on life satisfaction in the eudaimonia and hedonia groups. The combined training worked (full-life effectivity), although not more so than the single-component trainings (no full-life superiority). The expected mediating role of the art-of-living (a set of individual behavioral strategies) for training effects on life satisfaction was also supported. Results are discussed with reference to the synergetic change model, which offers further ideas to improve combined trainings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15837,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Happiness Studies\",\"volume\":\"107 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-11\",\"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/s10902-025-00872-w\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Happiness Studies","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-025-00872-w","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

摘要

在最近的科学辩论中,欣快症和享乐症被认为是通往幸福的互补或对立的途径。如果它们是相反的,那么两者的结合就不会产生积极的效果。如果它们是互补的,它们的组合是特别有趣的。迄今为止的研究通常是基于相关设计,不允许得出因果关系的任何结论。因此,我们采用随机对照设计不仅是为了证明对快乐感和快乐感的干预措施的有效性,也是为了看看快乐感和快乐感的结合是否会带来生活满意度(终身有效性),甚至优于单一成分干预(终身优势)。两项随机对照研究分别进行了术前、术后和随访测量。在研究1 (N = 265)中,我们比较了四组:快乐训练组、快乐训练组、联合训练组和对照组。在研究2 (N = 76)中,我们比较了三组:有氧训练组、联合训练组和对照组。结果显示,快乐组和快乐组对生活满意度均有正向影响。组合训练是有效的(终生有效),尽管并不比单一成分训练更有效(没有终生优势)。生活艺术(一套个人行为策略)对训练对生活满意度的影响的预期中介作用也得到了支持。结合协同变革模型对结果进行了讨论,为进一步改进联合训练提供了思路。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Enhancing Life Satisfaction through Eudaimonic, Hedonic, and Combined Interventions: New Training Approaches Relevant to Theory and Practice

In recent scientific debates, eudaimonia and hedonia have been discussed as either complementary or opposing pathways to well-being. If they are opposites, a combination of the two would not have a positive effect. If they are complementary, their combination is of particular interest. Research to date has often been based on correlational designs that do not allow any conclusions to be drawn about causality. Therefore, we used randomized control designs not only to demonstrate the effectiveness of interventions for eudaimoina and hedonia but also to see whether or not a combination of hedonia and eudaimonia will lead to life satisfaction (full-life effectivity) or even outperforms single-component interventions (full-life superiority). Two randomized controlled studies were conducted with pre-, post- and follow-up measurements. In Study 1 (N = 265), we compared four groups: hedonia training, eudaimonia training, combined training and a control group. In Study 2 (N = 76), we compared three groups: eudaimonia training, combined training and a control group. Results showed positive effects on life satisfaction in the eudaimonia and hedonia groups. The combined training worked (full-life effectivity), although not more so than the single-component trainings (no full-life superiority). The expected mediating role of the art-of-living (a set of individual behavioral strategies) for training effects on life satisfaction was also supported. Results are discussed with reference to the synergetic change model, which offers further ideas to improve combined trainings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
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?
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信