It may be simpler to consider well-being to be a unidimensional construct, as hypothesized, for example, by the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire (Hills & Argyle, 2002) or by the single-item measures proposed in several contexts (

Research on hedonic and eudaimonic orientations has previously focused on their effects on well-being experiences. Very little is known about their associations with functioning. A preliminary objective of the study was to establish the factorial validity of the Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives for Activities-Revised (HEMA-R) on an Italian sample (N = 461) through a confirmatory factor analysis. The main objective was to study the distinctive patterns of correlates between different types of orientations to well-being and several outcome measures of positive experiences (flourishing, life satisfaction, positive affect), negative experiences (negative affect, depression, anxiety, stress) and functioning (dispositional coping strategies) by means of a multivariate linear model. The Italian version of the HEMA-R showed a three-factor structure, namely eudaimonic, pleasure, and relaxation orientations. Pleasure orientation was positively related to positive experiences of wellbeing and negatively related to negative experiences. Eudaimonic orientation was associated with positive experiences. Furthermore, eudaimonic orientation showed a positive relation with several adaptive coping strategies, whereas relaxation was associated with avoidant coping strategies. The results reflect that pleasure orientation is aimed at achieving pleasant feelings, while Eudaimonic orientation is aimed at living well. Our findings also suggest that pleasure orientation may reflect the "pursuit of pleasure" component of Hedonia, while relaxation orientation may reflect its "pain avoidance" component. Overall, this study supports the importance of distinguishing between Eudaimonia, and the pleasure and relaxation components of Hedonia to predict individual differences in subjective experiences and functioning.

No abstract

Previous research has addressed the study of the well-being structure focusing on the separability among hedonic and eudaimonic dimensions by means of latent variable approaches. Diener’s tripartite model of Subjective Well-Being has often been identified with hedonic well-being, while flourishing (i.e., positive functioning) has been classified as a proxy for eudaimonic well-being. Instead of pursuing a theory-driven approach, the structure of well-being dimensions can be retrieved by means of network psychometrics that is a highly informative, data-driven approach that allows the model structure to spontaneously emerge from the relationships among indicators. Furthermore, we propose a strength centrality decomposition that is able to summarize the influence of a specific indicator within its dimension and between the other dimensions. Contrary to the theoretical conjecture that the separability among well-being dimensions can be grounded on a hedonic and eudaimonic distinction, our results point to a categorization of the Diener’s well-being indicators based on the type of information they convey, that is global evaluation of life satisfaction, positive and negative affective experiences, and perceived positive functioning in life.

Background and objectives: Previous research has provided insufficient evidence on the factorial validity of the negative cognitive style questionnaires, which is a problem for the validity of the total score's computation. In Study 1, we focused on the relationship between internality and the other dimensions of negative cognitive style. In Study 2, we explored the predictive validity of negative cognitive style for negative interpretation bias. Methods: In Study 1, 770 participants completed the Cognitive Style Questionnaire-Short Form (CSQ-SF). In Study 2, from a prescreening data collection (N = 300) we selected participants with low (N = 40) and high (N = 32) cognitive vulnerability to depression who were primed with negative mood induction and who completed a generative interpretation task. Results: In Study 1, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) indicated that the best fitting model for the CSQ-SF was a bifactor model without the internality dimension. In Study 2, a CFA replicated the factorial structure of Study 1 and individuals with a high negative cognitive style exhibited a negative interpretation bias after controlling for depressive symptoms. Limitations: The university-age sample limited the generalizability of our results to different populations, and the lack of longitudinal data prevented us from discussing further implications on the relationship between the negative interpretation bias and negative cognitive style in predicting depression. Conclusions: Together, the results of our two studies support the construct validity of the CSQ-SF and recommend the use of a composite score of negative cognitive style without internality.