Value priorities as predictors of hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being
Introduction
As Sagiv and Schwartz (2000) and Vansteenkiste, Duriez, Simons, and Soenens (2006), among others, have pointed out, two lines of research have been followed to examine the relation between values and well-being. The main hypothesis of the first one is that pursuing “healthy” values contributes to well-being and pursuing “unhealthy” ones harms it. In other words, this line of research attempts to find direct effects of value priorities on well-being. Sagiv and Schwartz (2000), for example, in part I of their study, tried to investigate the direct relations between 10 basic values (based on the value theory developed by Schwartz (1992)) and three indexes of subjective well-being in six different samples from three cultural groups. They concluded that “values have some direct influences on subjective well-being. This influence is rather weak and it refers only to the affective aspect of well-being” (p. 186).
Given its assumption that pursuing extrinsic values are detrimental to well-being, research investigating the relation between intrinsic and extrinsic values and well-being also falls into this line of research. Some researchers (e.g. Kasser and Ahuvia, 2002, Kasser and Ryan, 1996, Vansteenkiste et al., 2006) have argued that pursuing intrinsic values (e.g. self-acceptance and affiliation) benefits people’s well-being. In contrast, pursuing extrinsic values (e.g. material success and fame) harms their well-being.
The second line of research (advocated by Sagiv and Schwartz (2000), part II) is focused on the fit between the person’s value priorities and the values prevailing in her environment. This approach holds that such a fit (between a person’s values and those emphasized within her environment) is crucial to individuals’ well-being. In the second part of Sagiv and Schwartz’s (2000) study, this hypothesis was tested by comparing a small sample of psychology students with a small sample of business students on the assumption that within these two groups opposing sets of values are emphasized. The authors concluded that “personal value priorities contribute significantly to subjective well-being above and beyond their modest direct effects. Congruity between people’s values and their environment promotes well-being regardless of the particular values to which people ascribe importance” (p. 194).
But these findings were not replicated in some other research. Kasser and Ahuvia (2002), for example, investigated the relation between extrinsic, materialistic values and well-being in a sample of 92 business students in Singapore where it is believed that extrinsic, materialistic values are highly supported and encouraged. Their findings suggest that some types of values may be healthy or unhealthy; no matter how congruent they are with the value set supported by individuals’ environment. Vansteenkiste et al. (2006) using a larger sample of business students also found that despite the match between their personal value orientation and the values emphasized within their environments, extrinsically oriented business students displayed lower psychological and physical well-being.
One more piece of evidence against the importance of congruity comes from the research on cultural estrangement. Cultural estrangement is conceptualized as discrepancies between personal value priorities and perceived societal values (Bernard, Gebauer, & Maio, 2006). According to the congruity model, cultural estrangement is expected to be correlated negatively with mental health indicators. However, Bernard et al. (2006)’s findings, for example, showed that there were no significant relation between value discrepancies and poor psychological outcomes.
The brief review provided here about the relation between values and well-being suggests that, on balance, the direct effect model has received more empirical support than the congruity model so far, although the congruity model may not be left out. Indeed, as Sagiv, Roccas, and Hazan (2004) point out, each perspective has practical implications for both individuals and society. One pertinent conclusion that can be drawn from prior studies is that it is useful to consider personal values in the set of potential predictors of different aspects of well-being in different cultures, along with other variables.
A rather wide variety of well-being scales have been used in the past studies, summarized above, but it sounds like researchers have not taken into consideration the distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being when choosing well-being scales, though this distinction has repeatedly proved significant and informative (see for example, Deci and Ryan, 2008, Ryan and Deci, 2001, Ryff and Singer, 2008).
Hedonia and eudaimonia are viewed as opposing ways of pursuing well-being. On the hedonic view, well-being is equated with hedonic pleasure or happiness. “Indeed, the predominant view among hedonic psychologists is that well-being consists of subjective happiness and concerns the experience of pleasure versus displeasure broadly construed to include all judgments about the good/ bad elements of life” (Ryan & Deci, 2001, p. 144).
Eudemonistic view, on the other hand, maintains that well-being cannot be equated with hedonia (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Instead, this second view considers well-being to consist of more than just happiness, suggesting that people’s reports of being happy (or of being positively affective and satisfied) do not necessarily mean that they are functioning psychologically well. This view is referred to as eudaimonia and is concerned with living well or actualizing one’s human potentials (Deci & Ryan, 2008).
However, empirical investigations suggest that there is substantial overlap between the experience of hedonia and eudaimonia. As Ryan and Deci (2001) have noted, “Evidence from a number of investigators has indicated that well-being is probably best conceived as a multidimensional phenomenon that includes aspects of both the hedonic and eudaimonic conceptions” (p. 148). As Strümpfer (2006) has pointed out, such a conception would clearly fit well into Keyes’ (2005) “Complete Mental Health Model”. According to this comprehensive model of well-being, each dimension of well-being (subjective, psychological and social) represents an important domain of study in itself, thus, these scales should be collectively employed to measure the presence and absence of mental health.
On this basis, and building on the studies done within the direct effect model, this study seeks to examine the relation between value priorities and both hedonic (namely, affect balance and life satisfaction) and eudaimonic aspects (namely, psychological and social well-being) of well-being, a question that, as far as we are aware, has not been examined yet in this field of research. To this end, canonical correlation analysis will be used in addition to bivariate correlation analysis. This makes the present study different from that of Sagiv and Schwartz’s study (part I), as they used merely bivariate correlation analysis.
Section snippets
Participants
Participants were 200 university students at the University of Tehran. The sample consisted of 146 male (73%) and 54 female (27%) students who were recruited from different fields of study and all were volunteers, with their age ranging from 18 to 28 years (average age = 21.24, S.D. = 1.95).
Ethnicity reported was 108 (54%) Fars, 30 (15%) Turk, 25 (12%) Lor, 21 (10.5%) Kurd and 13 (6.5%) other ethnicities; three participants did not report their ethnicity. Seventy (35%) of the participants were from
Preliminary analyses
Table 2 presents means, standard deviations and Cronbach’s alphas for all the scales of the study. Note that Cronbach’s alpha may not be calculated for affect balance, since affect balance score for each individual is calculated by subtracting the sum of the six negative affects from the sum of the six positive affects.
Although the alphas of the 10 value scales were analogues to those reported in prior studies, we were interested to examine two possible reasons for the relatively low alphas of
Discussion
Based on the results of the bivariate correlation analysis, it can be concluded that, regardless of the value types emphasized within the context, in this Iranian sample achievement and tradition are significantly correlated with both eudaimonic and hedonic aspects of well-being. Power, self-direction, universalism, benevolence and conformity also are related to eudaimonic aspects of well-being.
Results of bivariate correlation analysis showed that a larger number of values (and to a larger
References (23)
Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries
- et al.
Cultural estrangement: The role of personal and societal value discrepancies
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
(2006) - et al.
Values and personality
European Journal of Personality
(1994) - et al.
Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: An introduction
Journal of Happiness Studies
(2008) - et al.
The satisfaction with life scale
Journal of Personality Assessment
(1985) - et al.
Examining the factor structure of the Keyes’ comprehensive scale of well-being
Journal of Iranian Psychologists
(2006) - et al.
Materialistic values and well-being in business students
European Journal of Social Psychology
(2002) - et al.
Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
(1996) Social well-being
Social Psychology Quarterly
(1998)Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete state model of health
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
(2005)
Measuring values with the short Schwartz’s value survey
Journal of Personality Assessment
Cited by (79)
There is no temporal relationship between hedonic values and life satisfaction: A longitudinal study spanning 13 years
2021, Journal of Research in PersonalityCitation Excerpt :However, with the rise of individualism and the relative betterment of standards of living in modern times, hedonism is increasingly gaining popularity among philosophers, scientists, and laypeople (e.g., Feldman, 2002; Turner, 1994; Veenhoven, 2003). Some cross-sectional studies have shown that endorsing hedonic values has a positive but weak association with subjective well-being (e.g., Bilbao et al., 2007; Bobowik et al., 2010; Haslam et al., 2009; Joshanloo & Ghaedi, 2009). Research on hedonic motives for activities and hedonism as a lay conception of well-being also generally shows a weak positive association with well-being (e.g., Huta, 2016; McMahan & Estes, 2011).
Value change in response to cultural priming: The role of cultural identity and the impact on subjective well-being
2019, International Journal of Intercultural RelationsCitation Excerpt :Previous research on the associations between personal values and subjective well-being has been pursued along two lines in general (Joshanloo & Ghaedi, 2009; Sagiv & Schwartz, 2000). The first line of research has focused on the direct effects of values on well-being, proposing that “healthy” values promoting psychological growth and self-actualization (e.g., self-direction, benevolence, universalism, achievement, and stimulation) have positive effects on well-being, whereas “unhealthy” values emphasizing extrinsic needs (e.g., conformity, tradition, security, and power) have negative effects (Bobowik, Basabe, Paez, Jimenez, & Bilbao, 2011; Joshanloo & Ghaedi, 2009; Sagiv & Schwartz, 2000). For instance, Bobowik et al. (2011) revealed that hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, universalism, and benevolence were positively correlated, though weakly, with life satisfaction and affect balance.
Moralities, cultural fit and life satisfaction
2024, International Journal of PsychologyWork engagement among higher education teachers: exploring the influence of human values and subjective well-being
2024, International Journal of Productivity and Performance ManagementCan personal values moderate players’ affective states?
2024, Current Psychology