通往幸福的不同途径:探索禁欲主义者和非禁欲主义者之间有价值的行为和情绪

IF 3.4 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Nicola V. Catts , Baljinder K. Sahdra , Joseph Ciarrochi , Madeleine I. Fraser , Cristóbal Hernández , Steven C. Hayes , Andrew T. Gloster
{"title":"通往幸福的不同途径:探索禁欲主义者和非禁欲主义者之间有价值的行为和情绪","authors":"Nicola V. Catts ,&nbsp;Baljinder K. Sahdra ,&nbsp;Joseph Ciarrochi ,&nbsp;Madeleine I. Fraser ,&nbsp;Cristóbal Hernández ,&nbsp;Steven C. Hayes ,&nbsp;Andrew T. Gloster","doi":"10.1016/j.jcbs.2025.100898","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>To examine the relationship between valued action and mood, this study analyzed Ecological Momentary Assessment data from a transdiagnostic in- and out-patient sample (EMA; <em>N</em> = 134; 62 female, 72 male; 62 inpatient, 72 outpatient; <em>M</em><sub><em>age</em></sub> = 36.6 years, <em>SD</em> = 11.6). Individual time series models were constructed to capture each participant's unique relationship between valued action and mood. The models were then meta-analyzed, revealing substantial variability, with two subgroups; Stoics (n = 64) and Non-Stoics (n = 70). The Stoics subgroup showed null or negative links between valued action and mood, replicating past findings from a nonclinical sample. The Non-Stoic group engaged significantly more in valued actions characterized by enjoyment and relaxation. Subsequent multilevel VAR networks were created to examine differences between Stoics and Non-Stoics. Within-person analyses indicated that, unlike Non-Stoics, Stoics showed no significant association between valued action and mood in contemporaneous networks. Temporal networks revealed that, for Non-Stoics, mood positively influenced future engagement in valued action. These findings challenge assumptions of a universally positive relationship between valued action and mood, suggesting divergent paths to well-being based on individual differences in mood-action dynamics.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47544,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science","volume":"36 ","pages":"Article 100898"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Distinct pathways to well-being: Exploring valued action and mood among stoics and non-stoics\",\"authors\":\"Nicola V. Catts ,&nbsp;Baljinder K. Sahdra ,&nbsp;Joseph Ciarrochi ,&nbsp;Madeleine I. Fraser ,&nbsp;Cristóbal Hernández ,&nbsp;Steven C. Hayes ,&nbsp;Andrew T. Gloster\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcbs.2025.100898\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>To examine the relationship between valued action and mood, this study analyzed Ecological Momentary Assessment data from a transdiagnostic in- and out-patient sample (EMA; <em>N</em> = 134; 62 female, 72 male; 62 inpatient, 72 outpatient; <em>M</em><sub><em>age</em></sub> = 36.6 years, <em>SD</em> = 11.6). Individual time series models were constructed to capture each participant's unique relationship between valued action and mood. The models were then meta-analyzed, revealing substantial variability, with two subgroups; Stoics (n = 64) and Non-Stoics (n = 70). The Stoics subgroup showed null or negative links between valued action and mood, replicating past findings from a nonclinical sample. The Non-Stoic group engaged significantly more in valued actions characterized by enjoyment and relaxation. Subsequent multilevel VAR networks were created to examine differences between Stoics and Non-Stoics. Within-person analyses indicated that, unlike Non-Stoics, Stoics showed no significant association between valued action and mood in contemporaneous networks. Temporal networks revealed that, for Non-Stoics, mood positively influenced future engagement in valued action. These findings challenge assumptions of a universally positive relationship between valued action and mood, suggesting divergent paths to well-being based on individual differences in mood-action dynamics.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47544,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science\",\"volume\":\"36 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100898\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212144725000298\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212144725000298","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为了检验有价值的行为和情绪之间的关系,本研究分析了来自跨诊断的住院和门诊患者样本(EMA;n = 134;女性62人,男性72人;住院62人,门诊72人;年龄= 36.6岁,SD = 11.6)。构建了个体时间序列模型来捕捉每个参与者在有价值的行为和情绪之间的独特关系。然后对模型进行荟萃分析,揭示了两个亚组的实质性变异性;斯多葛派(n = 64)和非斯多葛派(n = 70)。斯多葛学派的亚组显示,有价值的行为和情绪之间存在零联系或负联系,这与过去非临床样本的研究结果一致。非斯多葛组明显更多地参与以享受和放松为特征的有价值的行为。随后创建了多层VAR网络来检查斯多葛派和非斯多葛派之间的差异。内部分析表明,与非斯多葛学派不同,斯多葛学派在同一网络中没有显示出有价值的行为和情绪之间的显著关联。时间网络显示,对于非斯多葛学派,情绪积极影响未来参与有价值的行动。这些发现挑战了有价值的行为和情绪之间普遍存在积极关系的假设,表明基于情绪-行动动力学的个体差异,通往幸福的不同途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Distinct pathways to well-being: Exploring valued action and mood among stoics and non-stoics
To examine the relationship between valued action and mood, this study analyzed Ecological Momentary Assessment data from a transdiagnostic in- and out-patient sample (EMA; N = 134; 62 female, 72 male; 62 inpatient, 72 outpatient; Mage = 36.6 years, SD = 11.6). Individual time series models were constructed to capture each participant's unique relationship between valued action and mood. The models were then meta-analyzed, revealing substantial variability, with two subgroups; Stoics (n = 64) and Non-Stoics (n = 70). The Stoics subgroup showed null or negative links between valued action and mood, replicating past findings from a nonclinical sample. The Non-Stoic group engaged significantly more in valued actions characterized by enjoyment and relaxation. Subsequent multilevel VAR networks were created to examine differences between Stoics and Non-Stoics. Within-person analyses indicated that, unlike Non-Stoics, Stoics showed no significant association between valued action and mood in contemporaneous networks. Temporal networks revealed that, for Non-Stoics, mood positively influenced future engagement in valued action. These findings challenge assumptions of a universally positive relationship between valued action and mood, suggesting divergent paths to well-being based on individual differences in mood-action dynamics.
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
8.50
自引率
18.00%
发文量
82
审稿时长
61 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science is the official journal of the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science (ACBS). Contextual Behavioral Science is a systematic and pragmatic approach to the understanding of behavior, the solution of human problems, and the promotion of human growth and development. Contextual Behavioral Science uses functional principles and theories to analyze and modify action embedded in its historical and situational context. The goal is to predict and influence behavior, with precision, scope, and depth, across all behavioral domains and all levels of analysis, so as to help create a behavioral science that is more adequate to the challenge of the human condition.
×
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