Search

Eudaimonia and hedonia are two different sources of motivation for people to pursue happiness. Previous studies have suggested that eudaimonic motivation is a more effective predictor of happiness than hedonic motivation, but little is known about the reasons for this. The present study attempts to investigate the secret of eudaemonists who experience more happiness by comparing the differences in the mechanisms by which the two happiness motives affect life satisfaction. To this end, the study randomly selected 852 university students from 19 different provinces in China to examine the relationships between eudaimonic and hedonic motives, meaning-seeking, meaning experience, positive emotions, negative emotions, and life satisfaction. Structural equation model (SEM) was used to test the mediating effect of meaning in life and emotion between happiness motivation and life satisfaction. The results showed that (1) the predictive effect of eudaimonic motives on life satisfaction was much higher than that of hedonic motives. (2) The difference in the predictive effect between the two kinds of motivation was due to the different influencing mechanisms. Eudaimonic motives promoted life satisfaction through meaning or the combination of meaning and emotion, while hedonic motivation promoted life satisfaction through positive emotion. The effect size of many mediating paths of eudaimonic motives was large and the direction (positivity and negativity) was consistent, while that of hedonic motives was smaller and had a larger suppressing effect. (3) Eudaimonic motives had a negative impact on life satisfaction through meaning-seeking, but this negative impact was reversed when individuals enhanced the experience of meaning through meaning-seeking. (4) Hedonic motives did not predict the reduction of negative emotions, nor did they improve individual life satisfaction by reducing negative emotions. To some extent, the research results reflected the internal mechanism of individual pursuit of happiness, revealed the reason why eudaimonic motives can bring more happiness, and suggests that it is very important to understand individuals' motivation for happiness pursuit., Author(s): Wujun Sun [sup.1] [sup.2] , Lei Liu [sup.3] , Zeqing Zheng [sup.4] , Yuan Jiang [sup.5] , Ping Fang [sup.2] Author Affiliations: (1) grid.462338.8, 0000 0004 0605 6769, Faculty [...]

Research on social support in China has been relatively comprehensive as psychological development cannot be separated from the social environment. Family, teachers, and friends are the main sources of social support for middle school students. If we can fully utilize the academic support provided by families, teachers, and classmates in daily life, improve students' personal efficacy, stimulate their learning motivation and desire, and provide corresponding emotional, resource, behavioral, and willingness support for middle school students, it will help them better enhance their learning adaptability, increase their investment in learning, and then improve their learning consciousness, ultimately promoting the enhancement of academic achievement and the development of their abilities. Therefore, based on the existing scales of social support and academic support, this study determined the academic support scale for middle school students, exploring the source of academic support from four dimensions: willingness support, resource support, emotional support, and behavioral support. Based on a literature review and questionnaire, a formal scale was formed to measure the academic support of middle school students. In total, 762 students from two middle schools in Shijiazhuang and Hengshui were selected as subjects for data analysis. Exploratory factor analysis showed that the scale was composed of four factors: willingness support, resource support, emotional support, and behavioral support, with a cumulative contribution rate of 54.15%. The factor loadings of the items ranged from 0.423 to 0.783. The indicators obtained by confirmatory factor analysis were χ2/df of 2.98, RMSEA of 0.072, GFI of 0.841, IFI of 0.902, TLI of 0.891, and CFI of 0.901. The Cronbach's α coefficient was 0.955, the Spearman–Brown coefficient was 0.939, and the correlation coefficients between each dimension and the total scale were 0.892–0.945. The results show that the reliability and validity of the scale are within the acceptable range, in line with the standards of measurement, and can be used as a tool to measure the academic support of middle school students. This measurement can be used to evaluate the multidimensional academic support systems in middle schools and inform the development of targeted interventions to promote student success and well-being. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]