Abstract
The Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives for Activities (HEMA) scale measures well-being as a series of orientations. We investigated the HEMA scale’s psychometric properties among two Japanese samples in longitudinal studies over periods of one month (N = 385) and two months (N = 224). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses identified three subscales of the HEMA scale: hedonic pleasure orientation, hedonic relaxation orientation, and eudaimonic orientation. On average, at a given point in time, the correlations between subscales were r = .58 for the hedonic pleasure and hedonic relaxation orientations; r = .56 for the hedonic pleasure and eudaimonic orientations; and r = .26 for the hedonic relaxation and eudaimonic orientations—while the internal consistencies were αs > .80 for all subscales. In both studies, the three HEMA subscales had test-retest correlations averaging rs = .51, which suggests that these orientations are temporally quite stable, yet they are also amenable to change. Longitudinal analyses showed correlations between the HEMA scale and external criteria: hedonic pleasure orientation was associated with life satisfaction, positive affect, personal growth, purpose in life, and sense of meaning; hedonic relaxation orientation was associated with life satisfaction, positive affect, calm affect, and personal growth; and eudaimonic orientation was associated with life satisfaction, positive affect, personal growth, purpose in life, and sense of meaning. Implications for future research on the HEMA scale are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We distinguish “well-being orientations” assessed with the HEMA scale from “well-being outcomes” measured with existing scales, including life satisfaction, positive affect, negative affect, calm affect, personal growth, purpose in life, and sense of meaning.
The same patterns of results were observed when we analyzed the original 9-item HEMA scale.
References
Asano, R., Igarashi, T., & Tsukamoto, S. (2014). The hedonic and Eudaimonic motives for activities (HEMA) in Japan: The pursuit of well-being. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 85(1), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.4992/jjpsy.85.69.
Bujacz, A., Vittersø, J., Huta, V., & Kaczmarek, L. D. (2014). Measuring hedonia and eudaimonia as motives for activities: Cross-national investigation through traditional and Bayesian structural equation modeling. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 984. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00984.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276.
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 403–425. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145056.
Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2015). A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 113–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314544222.
Gruber, J., Mauss, I. B., & Tamir, M. (2011). A dark side of happiness? How, when, and why happiness is not always good. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(3), 222–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611406927.
Hitokoto, H., & Uchida, Y. (2015). Interdependent happiness: Theoretical importance and measurement validity. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16(1), 211–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9505-8.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Huta, V. (2016). Eudaimonic and hedonic orientations: Theoretical considerations and research findings. In J. Vittersø (Ed.), Handbook of eudaimonic well-being (pp. 215–231). New York, NY: Springer.
Huta, V., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Pursuing pleasure or virtue: The differential and overlapping well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(6), 735–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9171-4.
Huta, V., & Waterman, A. S. (2014). Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia: Developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(6), 1425–1456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9485-0.
Joshanloo, M. (2014). Eastern conceptualizations of happiness: Fundamental differences with western views. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(2), 475–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9431-1.
Joshanloo, M. (2016). Revisiting the empirical distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being using exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(5), 2023–2036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-015-9683-z.
Joshanloo, M., & Niknam, S. (2017). The Tripartite Model of Mental Well-Being in Iran: Factorial and Discriminant Validity. In The tripartite model of mental well-being in. Iran: Factorial and discriminant validity. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9595-7.
Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (Eds.). (1999). Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Kesebir, P., & Diener, E. (2008). In pursuit of happiness: Empirical answers to philosophical questions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(2), 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00069.x.
Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Kurokawa, M. (2000). Culture, emotion, and well-being: Good feelings in Japan and the United States. Cognition and Emotion, 14(1), 93–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999300379003.
Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Wood, A. M., Osborne, G., & Hurling, R. (2009). Measuring happiness: The higher order factor structure of subjective and psychological well-being measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(8), 878–884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.07.010.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803–855. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2017). Mplus user’s guide: Statistical analysis with latent variables (8th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
Nishita, Y. (2000). Diverse life-styles and psychological well-being in adult women. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 48(4), 433–443. https://doi.org/10.5926/jjep1953.48.4_433.
Ogawa, T., Monchi, R., Kikuya, M., & Suzuki, N. (2000). Development of the general affect scales. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 71(3), 241–246. https://doi.org/10.4992/jjpsy.71.241.
Oishi, S. (2009). Doing the science of happiness: What we learned from psychology. Tokyo: Shinyosha.
Oishi, S., Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (2007). The optimum level of well-being: Can people be too happy? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 346–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00048.x.
Oishi, S., Graham, J., Kesebir, S., & Galinha, I. C. (2013). Concepts of happiness across time and cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(5), 559–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213480042.
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5(2), 164–172. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.5.2.164.
Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Orientations to happiness and life satisfaction: The full life versus the empty life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6(1), 25–41.
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Raibley, J. R. (2012). Happiness is not well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(6), 1105–1129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-011-9309-z.
Robitschek, C. (1998). Personal growth initiative: The construct and its measure. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 30(4), 183–198.
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161–1178. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077714.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141.
Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Living well: A self-determination theory perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 139–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9023-4.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069.
Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719.
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 13–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9019-0.
Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134(1), 138–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.138.
Tsai, J. L., Knutson, B., & Fung, H. H. (2006). Cultural variation in affect valuation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(2), 288–307. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.2.288.
Uchida, Y., & Kitayama, S. (2009). Happiness and unhappiness in east and west: Themes and variations. Emotion, 9(4), 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015634.
Uchida, Y., Norasakkunkit, V., & Kitayama, S. (2004). Cultural constructions of happiness: Theory and empirical evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5(3), 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-004-8785-9.
Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 678–691. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.678.
Waterman, A. S., Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., Ravert, R. D., Williams, M. K., Agocha, V. B., et al. (2010). The questionnaire for Eudaimonic well-being: Psychometric properties, demographic comparisons, and evidence of validity. Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(1), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760903435208.
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.219.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063.
West, S. G., Taylor, A. B., & Wei, W. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 209–231). New York: Guilford Press.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge Yoshiko Honma for helping to collect the data of Study 1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Electronic Supplementary Material
ESM 1
(DOCX 54.4 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Asano, R., Tsukamoto, S., Igarashi, T. et al. Psychometric properties of measures of hedonic and eudaimonic orientations in Japan: The HEMA scale. Curr Psychol 40, 390–401 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9954-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9954-z