Journal of Happiness Studies

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-9994-y

RESEARCH PAPER

Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives: Associations

with Academic Achievement and Negative Emotional States
Among Urban College Students

Maria Kryza‑Lacombe1 · Elise Tanzini2 · Sarah O’Neill3

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
College students from diverse ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds are at risk for poorer
academic outcomes and greater psychopathology and it is important to identify factors that
are amenable to intervention and enhance college outcomes. Recent literature has enter-
tained happiness as a potential predictor of various success outcomes and it has been sug-
gested that parsing the concept of happiness into hedonia (seeking pleasure and relaxation)
and eudaimonia (seeking meaning) may be particularly useful. This study examined the
relations between hedonic and eudaimonic motives for action and student outcomes; that
is, academic achievement and their negative emotional states, in an ethnically and socio-
economically diverse urban college population. Undergraduate students (N = 119; mean
age = 21.24 [SD = 3.16] years; 59.7% female) completed self-reported measures of hedonic
and eudaimonic motives for action, and depression, anxiety, and stress. Semester GPA was
collected from school records. Hedonic motives for action (“Hedonia”) were not associated
with GPA or students’ negative emotional states. Eudaimonic motives for action (“Eudai-
monia”), however, were significantly positively associated with GPA, Individuals with high
levels of both Hedonia and Eudaimonia (the Full Life) had higher GPAs compared to indi-
viduals with low Eudaimonia, but did not differ from students with high Eudaimonia and
low Hedonia (Eudaimonic Life). Eudaimonia was also significantly negatively associated
with Depression and Stress, and individuals high in Eudaimonia had the lowest levels of
both of these outcomes compared to those with low Eudaimonia. Eudaimonic motives may
be important for more desirable college outcomes, and interventions that promote develop-
ment of this domain may hold promise.

* Sarah O’Neill
[email protected]
1
San Diego State University/University of California, San Diego Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical
Psychology, San Diego, USA
2
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Canada
3
Psychology Department, The City College of New York and The Graduate Center, City University
of New York, 160 Convent Avenue, New York, NY 10031, USA

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 M. Kryza‑Lacombe et al.

Keywords Hedonia · Eudaimonia · College · Academic success · Stress · Psychological

distress

1 Introduction

In the United States, obtaining a college education has long been associated with eco-
nomic, social, and health benefits. From increased earnings to improved health (e.g., Perna
2003; Mirowsky and Ross 2003), benefits do not cease at the private level, but extend to
the public, such as increased tax revenues and charitable giving, and decreased crime rates
(Bloom et al. 2007). In the context of these documented benefits, previous US government
initiatives have focused on expanding access to college for students who have historically
been underrepresented in the college setting (e.g., President Obama’s 2020 Graduation
Goal). However, beyond access, students’ success in college is a necessary step toward
achieving opportunities associated with a college degree. In a national survey of 4-year
institutions, the National Center for Education Statistics reported that 46.9% of Black and
48.8% of Hispanic full-time students attained a degree within 6-years, compared to 68.9
and 72.8% of their White and Asian peers, respectively (Snyder et al. 2016). This same
report indicated that 49.5% of students who fell into the lowest income category at time of
enrollment attained a degree within 6-years, compared to 76.8% of students who fell into
the highest income category. These reports are concerning, and suggest not only that bar-
riers to success exist within the college environment, but also that they disproportionally
affect low SES or Black and Hispanic student populations.
Various extrinsic and intrinsic predictors of students’ college outcomes have been iden-
tified. For example, the need to hold down a job outside of studying, family responsibili-
ties, and cost of education are just some of the numerous external challenges students face
when navigating their college careers (Cabrera et al. 1992; Logan et al. 2016; Soria et al.
2013). Research on intrinsic predictors has traditionally focused on demographic charac-
teristics and pre-college academic success (e.g., Wohlgemuth et al. 2006), but investiga-
tions have also looked at internalizing problems; that is, depression (Andrews and Wilding,
2004) and anxiety (Chapell et al. 2005). More recently studies have increasingly focused
on the impact of non-intellective factors, such as motivation, self-regulation, and psycho-
social factors (Richardson et al. 2012; Schneider and Preckel 2017). This shift reflects a
trend toward determining factors that may be amenable to change during the completion
of post-secondary education (Robbins et al. 2004). However, relatively few studies have
investigated these in the context of typically underrepresented student populations, for
whom extrinsic obstacles may be particularly burdensome (Farruggia et al. 2016). Further
research is required not only to distinguish factors that may predict students’ college out-
comes in these populations, but additionally, that may be modified through intervention.
In light of identified difficulties faced by underrepresented student populations attend-
ing college, research has focused on identifying ways to potentially improve students’
educational attainment (e.g., Jury et al. 2017; Stephens et al. 2014). Importantly, inter-
vention studies have shown that non-cognitive mindset factors such as value-reappraisal,
self-efficacy, and social-belonging can be changed (Acee and Weinstein 2010; Bresó et al.
2011), and that they can decrease the achievement gap between Latino and African Amer-
ican students and their White and Asian peers (Walton and Cohen 2011). However, we
are only beginning to understand the intricacies of how such factors shape student suc-
cess. Strength- and resilience-based interventions offer another approach (e.g., Yeager and

13
Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives: Associations with Academic…

Dweck 2012), consistent with positive psychology’s focus on subjective experiences, posi-
tive individual traits, and civic virtues (Seligman and Csikszenthmihalyi 2000). Such psy-
chological strengths may also predict academic achievement and emotional outcomes and
could be implemented in interventions that seek to empower students to succeed in college.
One such intrinsic resilience factor may be happiness.
Happiness has entered international discussion not only as an important goal of human
functioning, but more recently, as a measure of social progress (Helliwell et al. 2015).
Beyond being an important outcome in itself, investigations are beginning to elucidate hap-
piness as a predictor of numerous outcomes. However, this research has used multifarious
definitions that may not reflect the complexity of happiness (Delle Fave et al. 2016; Kim-
Prieto et al. 2005; Oishi et al. 2013), and in turn, may create a diffuse picture of this con-
cept. A robust definition that has gained prominence in the literature—but that has not yet
been widely investigated in relation to life outcomes—parses happiness into two distinct
processes: eudaimonia and hedonia (Deci and Ryan 2008; Henderson et al. 2013; Huta and
Ryan 2010; Peterson et al. 2005).
One way of conceptualizing eudaimonia and hedonia involves viewing these processes
as motivations for behavior, rather than affective states or outcomes. While hedonia is often
described as an emotional state, synonymous with subjective wellbeing (Deci and Ryan,
2008), a more comprehensive definition that has been used in contemporary literature con-
siders hedonia not as a state or outcome, but rather as seeking pleasure or comfort in the
present moment, through physical, intellectual, or social means (Huta and Waterman 2014;
Waterman 1993). The term eudaimonia dates back to Aristotle and can be conceptualized
in terms of pursuits of higher order (Aristotle 2001; Broadie 1991). In the literature, eudai-
monia has been described as future oriented with a focus on achievement, and involves
seeking personal growth, and creating purpose and meaning for oneself and others (Deci
and Ryan 2008; Waterman 1993; Ryff 1989). Considered together, hedonia and eudaimo-
nia, or hedonic and eudaimonic motives specifically, may present a more tenable approach
to conceptualizing happiness because it takes into account the reason or motivation driving
action, irrespective of the outcome of a particular action (Huta and Ryan 2010). Using this
conceptualization may further explain pathways of happiness to functional outcomes such
as academic attainment in post-secondary education.
Various measures have been identified as key indicators of student success, includ-
ing college grade point average, which is associated with student retention (Whalen et al.
2010). In addition, psychological distress (i.e., anxiety and depression) and chronic stress
are particularly salient for college populations and have been shown to interfere with aca-
demic performance (Andrews and Wilding 2004; Eisenberg et al. 2009). In a national
survey of college students’ health, 54.7% of students reported experiencing “more than
average stress” or “tremendous stress” in the last 12 months (American College Health
Association [ACHA], 2016). Further, 36.7% “felt so depressed it was difficult to function”
and 58.4% “felt overwhelming anxiety” at some point within the last 12 months. In this
same survey, 31.8% of students reported stress as a factor affecting their academic func-
tioning, 23.2% reported anxiety, and 15.4% reported depression affecting their academic
functioning (ACHA 2016). These reports show not only the magnitude of levels of stress,
anxiety, and depression experienced by students, but also, that students have self-identified
these experiences as inhibiting their success.
These experiences may be magnified for students who come from low-income fami-
lies or are first in their families to attend college (Engle and Tinto 2008), or for students
from minority groups (Eisenberg et al. 2013). A survey of 567 undergraduate students at
an ethnically diverse public college reported that 22.3 and 26.8% of student ratings fell

13
 M. Kryza‑Lacombe et al.

into moderate to severe categories of depression and anxiety, compared to 14.5 and 17.8%
of student ratings in a national college student survey (Mokrue and Acri 2015). Similarly,
Stebleton et al. (2014) found that first generation college students experienced higher levels
of depression and stress than their non-first generation counterparts. Further, lower SES
students have been found to exhibit heightened physiological stress responses and poorer
test performance compared to their higher SES peers (John-Henderson et al. 2014). Thus,
negative emotional states can exert a powerful impact on learning and academic success,
especially in underrepresented populations (Douce and Keeling 2014). Beyond this impact,
negative emotional states experienced in this setting may have further implications outside
of college and in future pursuits. It is the responsibility of post-secondary institutions to
ensure that students who present with these symptoms are offered supports (Douce and
Keeling 2014). Hence, identifying factors that may also predict negative emotional states,
in addition to achievement, is essential to inform interventions offered by institutions of
higher education.
It has been suggested that psychological outcomes such as negative emotional states
may be ameliorated via emotion regulation strategies (Martin and Dahlen 2005; Campbell-
Sills and Barlow 2007). Incorporating such strategies alone into interventions may not be
enough to help individuals improve their wellbeing. Recently, Tamir (2016) highlighted the
importance studying motives behind emotion regulation and described both hedonia and
eudaimonia as possible motives driving an individual to regulate their emotions. Hedonic
and eudaimonic motives may thus play an important role in ameliorating negative emo-
tional states including depression, anxiety, and stress. For example, a recent study showed
that eudaimonic motivation had a protective effect on anxiety in adults supporting indi-
viduals with autism spectrum conditions (Merrick et al. 2016). Furthermore, positive psy-
chology interventions incorporate strategies reflective of eudaimonic motivation, that is,
engendering meaning and direction in the day to day life, and have been shown to reduce
recurrent relapses in the treatment of depression (Santos et al. 2013). Examining the rela-
tionship between hedonic and eudaimonic motives and negative emotional outcomes in
college students may thus be a meaningful investigation.
Such motives may also influence academic performance more directly. Considering the
future-oriented features of goal-achievement that encompass eudaimonic motivation, it
may be that these motives are associated with life success in general, and academic perfor-
mance specifically. However, eudaimonically-oriented motives, at their extreme, may con-
ceivably lead to overexertion and burnout (Shanafelt et al. 2012). On the other hand, con-
sistent with findings showing that excessive hedonistic lifestyle may interfere with success
(Jeynes 2002), hedonic motives, when considered on their own, may be negatively associ-
ated with academic success. Considering the combined effects of hedonic and eudaimonic
orientations may therefore be more fruitful. High hedonic motives, in the context of a goal-
oriented, eudaimonic outlook, may provide balance and reduce stress, therefore increasing
the likelihood for positive outcomes. Thus, an eudaimonically-oriented individual who is
also is also highly motivated by hedonic pursuits may be able to create a life balance that
is necessary to prevent burnout and for sustained success (Dunn et al. 2008; Maslach and
Goldberg 1998). It is thus possible that high levels of both hedonic and eudaimonic moti-
vations (coined as the “Full Life” in previous literature, e.g., Huta and Ryan 2010) will
manifest the best student outcomes compared to the other groups.
The scientific investigation of this type of integration of hedonic and eudaimonic
perspectives into a common pathway toward desirable life outcomes is still at its incep-
tion. Nonetheless, extant evidence suggests that the combination of these constructs may
account for improved outcomes, such as greater levels of reported wellbeing, compared to

13
Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives: Associations with Academic…

each construct experienced separately (Huta and Ryan 2010). For example, individuals who
have high levels of both hedonic and eudaimonic motivations (the “Full Life”) may show
better wellbeing outcomes, such as life satisfaction, positive affect, carefreeness, meaning,
and flourishing compared to individuals who have low levels of both (the “Empty Life”), or
a combination of low and high levels (Huta and Ryan 2010; Peterson et al. 2005). However,
further investigation is needed to explore hedonic and eudaimonic motives as separate pre-
dictors, and how they interact, with respect to academic and emotional outcomes.
The present study attempts to further elucidate these relations by investigating hedonic
and eudaimonic motives as predictors of academic achievement and negative emotional
states in a sample of college students with diverse cultural and socioeconomic back-
grounds. Both academic achievement and emotional outcomes are vital contributors to
successful college completion and therefore important to investigate, particularly in this
vulnerable population. End of semester GPA served as a measure of academic achievement
and is one factor that contributes to overall college success (Whalen et al. 2010). Addi-
tionally, we examined students’ negative emotional states, defined as levels of depression,
anxiety and stress. These emotional states have been shown to influence college outcomes
(Andrews and Wilding 2004; Eisenberg et al. 2009). Building on previous evidence that
hedonic and eudaimonic motives are associated with positive life outcomes, we investi-
gated to what extent they contribute to these student outcomes. To expand current research
on eudaimonic and hedonic motives, we first investigated these concepts separately, and
then used the Full Life hypothesis to investigate their combined effect. We hypothesized
that: (1) eudaimonic motives would be positively related to GPA; (2) that the Full Life
group (high in both hedonic and eudaimonic motives) would have the highest GPA among
the groups; (3) that both hedonic and eudaimonic motives would be associated with lower
levels of stress and psychological distress; and (4) that emotional outcomes as a whole
would differ among groups, such that the Full Life would be associated with the best out-
comes (i.e., lowest depression, anxiety, and stress) compared to the other groups. In the
absence of other literature looking at hedonic and eudaimonic motives in relation to nega-
tive emotional outcomes and academic success, we did not specify hypotheses regarding
differences among the other groups (i.e., Empty Life, Eudaimonic Life, and Hedonic Life),
and analyses were exploratory.

2 Methods

2.1 Participants

Participants included 119 undergraduate students at an urban public senior college in the
North Eastern US. The majority (n = 71, 59.7%) of the sample identified as female and par-
ticipants’ ages ranged from 18 to 30 years (mean = 21.24, SD = 3.16). Table 1 summarizes
key demographic variables and demonstrates diversity in the present sample with respect
to self-identified racial and ethnic background and socioeconomic status. Approximately
one-third (n = 42, 35.3%) of participants self-identified as Hispanic/Latino. With respect to
race, 26 (21.8%) of participants identified as White; 20 (16.8%) as Black or African Ameri-
can; 34 (28.6%) as Asian; and 37 (31.1%) identified as belonging to another group; that
is, Hispanic (n = 9), Dominican (n = 5), Puerto Rican (n = 4), Caribbean (n = 4), Mexican
(n = 5), South American (n = 3), South Asian (n = 2), Middle Eastern (n = 3), and of multi-
ple races (n = 2). Two students chose not to disclose race.

13
 M. Kryza‑Lacombe et al.

Table 1  Demographic characteristics of participants, overall and among happiness groups

Total Full life Eudaimonic Hedonic life Empty life
life

(n = 119)a (n = 35) (n = 30) (n = 31) (n = 23)

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Age 21.24 3.16 21.42 2.83 22.09 4.19 20.59 2.51 20.73 2.74
MR T-Score 51.16 7.25 50.17 7.83 51.52 7.91 52.10 6.57 50.95 6.52
N % N % N % N % N %
Female 71 59.7 24 68.6 18 60.0 18 58.1 11 47.8
Hispanic or Latino 42 35.3 16 45.7 10 33.3 7 22.6 9 39.1
Race
Asian 34 28.6 9 25.7 7 23.0 13 41.9 5 21.7
Black/African American 20 16.8 6 17.1 3 10.0 4 12.9 7 30.4
White 26 21.8 7 20.0 9 30.0 6 19.4 4 17.4
Other 37 31.1 13 37.1 9 30.0 8 25.8 7 30.4
Bedrooms per household
Studio 1 0.8 1 2.9 0 0 0 0 0 0
One 15 12.6 6 17.1 4 13.3 3 9.7 2 8.7
Two 42 35.3 12 34.3 8 26.7 10 32.3 12 52.2
Three 28 31.9 10 28.6 15 50.0 7 22.6 6 26.1
Four or more 23 19.3 6 17.1 3 10.0 11 35.5 3 13.0
Household income
< $10,000 4 3.4 1 2.9 1 3.3 1 3.2 1 4.3
$10,000–$24,999 27 22.7 6 17.1 9 30.0 6 19.4 6 26.1
$25,000–$39,999 29 24.4 12 34.3 6 20.0 7 22.6 4 17.4
$40,000–$69,999 28 23.5 5 14.3 8 26.7 9 29.0 6 26.1
$70,000–$99,999 17 14.3 5 14.3 5 16.7 4 12.9 3 8.7
>= $100,000 13 10.9 6 17.1 1 3.3 4 12.9 2 11.8

N frequency, SD standard deviation, GPA grade point average, MR matrix reasoning

a
Ns may differ due to missing values

The clear majority of students (85.8%) lived in households with two or more bedrooms,
and the mean (SD) number of individuals living at their residence was 4.18 (1.44), con-
sistent with the institution being a commuter college where the overwhelming majority
of students live off campus. Participants’ socioeconomic status, estimated from household
income, was variable. More than half of the participants in our sample (52.8%) reported
household incomes of < $40,000 per annum, which is lower than the NYC median income
of $53,373 (U.S. Census Bureau 2015), while 10.4% placed themselves in the > $100,000
category.
The majority of the participants (84%) were full-time students. One-third (35.3%) of our
sample were in their first year of college; 15.1% were in their second year; 26.9% in their
third year; 16.0% were in their fourth year; and 6.7% had been in college for more than
4 years.
Participants were excluded if they were outside the age range of 18–35 years (n = 1), not
at the undergraduate level (n = 1), not fluent in English (n = 0), and if they did not consent

13
Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives: Associations with Academic…

to their GPA being retrieved from college records (n = 0). The data presented here repre-
sent a subsection of a larger study in which neuropsychological correlates of happiness
were assessed. Therefore, to ensure homogeneity of the sample with respect to intellectual
functioning, participants were excluded if their intellectual functioning, estimated using
the Matrix Reasoning subtest of the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI;
Wechsler 1999) was two or more standard deviations below the mean (n = 4).

2.2 Materials

Hedonic Eudaimonic Motives for Activities (HEMA) scale (Huta and Ryan 2010) This
9-item self-report questionnaire was used to assess hedonic and eudaimonic motives. Par-
ticipants were asked to what degree they typically approach daily activities with the sug-
gested intention on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = “not at all” to 7 = “very much”). Four inten-
tion items are related to eudaimonic motives (e.g., “to develop a skill, learn, or gain insight
into something”), and five to hedonic motives (e.g., “pleasure”). The questionnaire gener-
ates one score for each construct by averaging all items on each scale, with higher scores
indicating greater levels of eudaimonic and hedonic motives (“Eudaimonia” and “Hedo-
nia,” respectively). In this paper, the terms “Eudaimonia” and “Hedonia” refer to scores
generated from each scale respectively, which in turn reflect eudaimonic and hedonic
motives rather than subjective feeling states. Cronbach’s alpha estimates were 0.79 for
Hedonia and 0.75 for Eudaimonia.
Current semester GPA Participants’ grade point average (GPA) for current semester
was obtained through college academic records at the end of the academic semester dur-
ing which the students participated. GPA was measured on a scale from 0 to 4, with higher
scores indicating stronger academic performance.
Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS, Lovibond and Lovibond 1995) This
42-item self-report questionnaire was used to assess negative emotional states. For each
item, participants rated the degree to which it applied to them in the last week using a
4-point Likert scale (0 = “did not apply to me at all” to 3 = “applied to me very much or
most of the time”). The DASS includes three subscales that assess both psychological and
physiological symptoms of depression (e.g., “I couldn’t seem to experience any positive
feeling at all”), anxiety (e.g., “I felt scared for no reason”), and stress (e.g., “I found myself
getting upset by quite trivial things”). This measure was introduced later into the study and
therefore only 87 participants completed it. Individuals for whom DASS data was avail-
able did not differ significantly in key variables from individuals for whom these data were
missing (i.e., GPA, Hedonia, Eudaimonia, gender distribution, ethnicity, race, household
size, and household income), except for age (p = .03); individuals for whom the DASS was
missing were older. DASS data collection took place mostly during the fall semester when
more freshmen participated in the study compared to the previous semester when DASS
data collection had not yet started (42.2 vs. 21.9%). In the current sample, Cronbach’s
alpha estimates were 0.93, 0.86, 0.89 for depression, anxiety, and stress, respectively.
Socioeconomic Status Participants’ self-reported the number of people living in their
household, as well as annual household income, according to 1 of 6 bands (< $10,000;
10,000–19,999.99; $20,000–39,999.99; $40,000–$69,999.99; $70,000–$99,999.99; and
≥ $100,000). The income-to-needs ratio for each household was then calculated, adapted
from Barch et al. (2016), by dividing the mid-point of each participant’s annual household
income band by the federal poverty level for the number of residents in the household.
Higher values indicate higher SES.

13
 M. Kryza‑Lacombe et al.

2.3 Procedure

Prospective participants were recruited online through the Psychology Department subject
pool and flyers posted around campus. Participants attended a single 1.5-h session in the
laboratory during which they completed a demographic form, and the HEMA and DASS
questionnaires as part of a larger battery of tasks. Upon completion of the session, partici-
pants were compensated for their time. Participants who responded to flyers were entered
into a draw for a $150 gift card. Participants who signed up through the subject pool
earned course credit or extra credit, as determined by their instructor. GPA was obtained
from college records at the end of the academic semester. The University’s Institutional
Review Board approved this study. All participants completed oral and written consenting
procedures.

2.4 Statistical Analyses

ANOVA and regression analyses were conducted in STATA version 12.1 and for all other
analyses, SPSS version 23 was used. To assess bivariate correlations among Hedonia,
Eudaimonia, GPA and the negative emotional state variables (depression, anxiety and
stress), Spearman’s correlation coefficient was used due to the non-normal distributions
of these variables (i.e., z-score of skew and/or kurtosis statistic exceeded an absolute value
1.96). Non-transformed raw scores of the variables were used for these correlations. To
evaluate statistical models, the outcome variables were corrected for deviations from nor-
mality. A box-cox transformation was conducted for GPA and a square root transformation
for depression, anxiety, and stress.
To assess the Full Life hypothesis, participants were assigned to “happiness groups”
(i.e., Full Life, Empty Life, Hedonic Life, and Eudaimonic Life) based on their Hedonia
and Eudaimonia scores. Following Huta and Ryan’s (2010) method of stratifying Full Life,
Empty Life, Hedonic Life, and Eudaimonic Life groups, a median split was applied to the
raw, untransformed scores of both the Hedonia and Eudaimonia scales. Individuals were
then assigned to groups as follows: individuals with scores at or above the median on both
Hedonia and Eudaimonia were assigned to the Full Life group; those with scores below
the median on both variables were assigned to the Empty Life group; those with a Hedonia
score at or above the median and a Eudaimonia score below the median were assigned
to the Hedonic Life group; finally, individuals with a Eudaimonia score at or above the
median, and a Hedonia score below the median were assigned to the Eudaimonic Life
group.
To test the Full Life hypothesis in relation to GPA, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
was performed. As it was hypothesized that the Full Life group would have the best GPA
among the students, planned a priori contrasts were conducted comparing the Full Life to
all the other groups combined (Empty, Hedonic, and Eudaimonic Life), to each of the other
groups separately, to the Low Eudaimonia groups combined (Empty Life and Hedonic
Life), and to the Low Hedonia groups combined (Empty Life and Eudaimonic Life). These
comparisons were protected from Type I error in a family-wise fashion using Bonfer-
roni correction. Post-hoc Tukey corrected pair-wise comparisons were also conducted to
evaluate whether groups other than the Full Life group differed from each other. Second,
given the greater power derived from using continuous variables, GPA was regressed on to
Hedonia and Eudaimonia. Residuals were carefully examined for normality and influential

13
Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives: Associations with Academic…

cases. To account for the effect of influential cases a robust regression method was applied
with non-transformed GPA as the outcome variable.
Next, a Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was conducted to determine dif-
ferences in negative emotional states (i.e., depression, anxiety, and stress) among the hap-
piness groups. A discriminant function analysis was conducted to further examine signifi-
cant omnibus results.
For all analyses, assumptions inherent to the tests (e.g., normality, equality of variance,
equality of covariance matrices) were verified during the analyses. Additionally, effect
sizes were calculated using η2 for ANOVAs and regression analyses and partial η2 for
MANOVAs.

3 Results

3.1 Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives

Based on the 7-point Likert scale, the median Hedonia score in the overall sample was
5.2; the median Eudaimonia score was 6.0. Hedonia and Eudaimonia were not significantly
correlated with each other, rs = .09, p = .34. This was expected as the questionnaire was
developed specifically to distinguish hedonic from eudaimonic motives, and correlations of
similar magnitude have been reported in previous studies utilizing this questionnaire (e.g.,
Huta and Ryan 2010).
Age was positively skewed in our sample thus Spearman’s rho was calculated to eval-
uate the association between age and the raw happiness variables. Age was significantly
associated with Eudaimonia, rs = .20, p = .03, such that older students tended to rate them-
selves higher on the Eudaimonia items of the HEMA questionnaire. Although this finding
differs from Huta and Ryan (2010) who found that age was not related to Eudaimonia, in
our sample the magnitude of the association is weak, as demonstrated by the small effect
size. Consistent with Huta and Ryan (2010), Hedonia was not significantly correlated with
age, rs = .13, p = .15.
Using a median split of both scales generated four HEMA groups; 35 individuals
(29.4%) fell into the Full Life group (scores at or above the median on both Hedonia and
Eudaimonia scales), 30 (25.2%) into the Eudaimonia Life group (scores at or above the
median on Eudaimonia, but below the median on Hedonia), 31 (26.1%) into the Hedonic
Life group (scores below the median on Eudaimonia, but at or above the median on Hedo-
nia), and 23 (19.3%) fell into the Empty Life group (scores below the median on both
Hedonia and Eudaimonia scales).

3.2 Academic Outcomes

The mean (SD) end of semester GPA was 2.98 (0.76), equivalent to a B letter grade. GPA
ranged from 0.86 to 4.00 and the distribution was negatively skewed.

3.3 Depression, Anxiety, and Stress

Most of our sample fell within the normal range for depression, anxiety, and stress (67.8,
65.5, and 70.1%, respectively), although a notable number of students scored in the Severe
or Extremely Severe ranges for Depression (12.6%), Anxiety (11.5%), and Stress (6.9%).

13
 M. Kryza‑Lacombe et al.

Fig. 1  Mean (± 1 SE) GPA by

happiness groups. *p < 0.05,
Tukey-corrected; ^p < 0.05,
uncorrected

There were significant positive relations among the DASS scales, such that individuals who
scored higher on one scale also tended to score higher on the other two scales. Moderate-
high effect sizes were observed in the relations between Depression and Anxiety (rs = .59,
p < .001) and Depression and Stress (rs= .61, p < .001). The relation between Anxiety and
Stress was of large magnitude (rs = .67, p < .001).

3.4 The Relation Between Happiness Motives and College Outcomes

3.4.1 Happiness Motives and Academic Achievement

The present study investigated whether the happiness constructs, that is, hedonic and
eudaimonic motives for activities, were related to academic achievement, as defined by end
of semester GPA. Eudaimonia was significantly correlated with GPA, rs = .24, p = .01. Indi-
viduals who scored higher on Eudaimonia tended to have higher GPAs. No significant rela-
tion was observed between Hedonia and GPA (rs = − .16, p = .08).
Using the box-cox transformed GPA score as the outcome variable, a one-way ANOVA
revealed significant differences in GPA as a function of the four happiness groups, F(3,
115) = 4.06, p < .01, η2 = .10, of medium to large effect (see Fig. 1). To explore the hypoth-
esis of the Full Life individuals having the best GPA outcome within this student sample,
the mean GPA of the Full Life group was compared to the mean of all the other groups
(Empty, Hedonic, and Eudaimonic). Planned a priori pairwise contrasts were also con-
ducted comparing the Full Life group to each of the other groups (Empty, Hedonic, and
Eudaimonic). Additionally, to obtain a more complete picture of how Full Life individuals
compare to other constellations of students, the Full Life group was compared to the mean
of the Low Hedonia groups (Empty Life and Eudaimonic Life) and the mean of the Low
Eudaimonia groups (Empty Life and Hedonic Life). These planned contrasts revealed sig-
nificant per comparison differences between the Full Life group and the Empty Life group
(p = 0.03) and the Full Life group and the mean of the Low Eudaimonia groups (p = 0.04)
such that the Full Life group had higher GPA. These significant per-comparison results do
not survive Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons however, and should therefore
be interpreted with caution. To evaluate whether groups other than the Full Life groups
differed from each other, post hoc Tukey-corrected pairwise comparisons were conducted

13
Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives: Associations with Academic…

and revealed that the Eudaimonic Life group mean GPA of 3.27 was significantly higher
compared to the Empty Life group mean GPA of 2.68 (p < .05). None of the other Tukey-
corrected pairwise comparisons were significant, including the Eudaimonic and Full life
group. Results remained significant after controlling for age.
The relationship between eudaimonic and hedonic motives for action and GPA was fur-
ther explored via regression analysis, using both Hedonia and Eudaimonia as continuous
explanatory variables of GPA. After examining the residuals of the model predicting the
box-cox transformed GPA variable, at least one influential case remained. The regression
was subsequently conducted using STATA’s robust regression option with non-transformed
GPA as the outcome variable to account for these influential cases. This yielded a model
that significantly predicted GPA (­F2,116 = 5.05, p = .008). There was a significant main
effect of Eudaimonia on GPA, controlling for Hedonia ­(t116 = 2.82, p = .006). The main
effect of Hedonia on GPA, controlling for Eudaimonia, was not significant (­t116 = − 1.87,
p = .063). After controlling for age these results remained significant. Results also remained
unchanged after controlling for socioeconomic status, which was defined as the income-to-
needs ratio (Barch et al. 2016).

3.4.2 Happiness Motives and Negative Emotional States

There was a significant negative correlation between Eudaimonia and Depression

(rs = − .41, p < .001) and Eudaimonia and Stress (rs = − .24, p = .03), such that as Eudai-
monia increases, Depression and Stress decrease. No significant association was observed
between Eudaimonia and Anxiety, rs = − .12, p = .25. Similarly, there were no significant
associations between Hedonia and Depression, Anxiety, or Stress (rs = − .16 to − .06, all
ps > .10).
Mean Depression, Anxiety, and Stress among the four happiness groups are displayed in
Fig. 2. To assess whether the happiness groups differed in negative emotional states (i.e.,
depression, anxiety, and stress), a MANOVA was performed entering the three square root
transformed DASS subscales as outcome variables. The overall model was significant and
had a medium effect size, V = .24, F = 2.39, p < .05, partial η2 = .08.1
We performed a discriminant function analysis to further examine the interactions
among the negative emotional state variables and how they differ among the four groups
(Field 2009). Three discriminant functions were revealed: the first explained 98.4% of the
variance, canonical R­ 2 = .48; the second explained 1.2% of the variance, canonical R ­ 2 = .06;
and the third was very small explaining only 0.4% of the variance. These discriminant
functions, in combination, significantly differentiated the groups, Λ = .76, χ2(9) = 22.32,
p < .01, but removing the first function indicated that the second and third functions did
not significantly differentiate groups, Λ = .99, χ2(4) = 2.79, p > .05, therefore, only the first
function is discussed in more detail. This function demonstrates that depression and stress
follow a similar pattern whereby the highest levels are seen in the Empty Life group and

1
In light of the finding that individuals who did not complete the DASS were older than those who did
complete the measure, a MANCOVA was run, with three square root transformed DASS subscales as out-
come variables, and age as a covariate. No change in findings was observed. Similarly, no changes to the
results were observed when controlling for SES.

13
 M. Kryza‑Lacombe et al.

Fig. 2  Mean (± 1 SE) depression, anxiety, and stress score by happiness group

the lowest levels in the Full and Eudaimonic Life groups, with intermediate levels in the
Hedonic Life group (Fig. 2).

4 Discussion

The current study explored to what extent happiness motives were associated with out-
comes relevant to college students, specifically academic achievement (as measured by end
of semester GPA) and negative emotional states (as defined by levels of depression, anxi-
ety, and stress) in a sample of ethnically and socioeconomically diverse urban college stu-
dents. Hedonic and eudaimonic motives for activities were investigated both separately and
jointly. Combined effects of happiness orientations on academic achievement and negative
emotional states were assessed by separating the sample into four happiness groups that
varied in levels of hedonic and eudaimonic motives: the Full Life, the Eudaimonic Life, the
Hedonic Life, and the Empty Life.
It was predicted that GPA would be positively associated with eudaimonic motives and
that the Full Life group would have the highest GPA. Results showed that, indeed, higher
levels of Eudaimonia were associated with higher GPA, while Hedonia was not associ-
ated with GPA. Furthermore, the data suggest that the GPA of individuals living the Full
Life was higher than those living the Empty Life, and those low in Eudaimonia overall,
although these results should be treated with caution as they did not survive correction for
multiple comparisons. The prediction that the Full Life group would have the highest GPA
of all groups was not supported. The Eudaimonic Life group had a mean GPA equivalent
to a B+, which was not significantly different from the Full Life group, which had a mean
GPA equivalent to a B letter grade. The association between happiness motives and GPA
was further explored using continuous levels of Hedonia and Eudaimonia as predictors of
GPA. Higher Eudaimonia was associated with higher GPA, but Hedonia and GPA were not

13
Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives: Associations with Academic…

significantly related. This may indicate that although eudaimonic motives are particularly
important for academic achievement, hedonic motives do not interfere with it.
This finding adds to the literature because in prior work, happiness has been character-
ized as a concept with no direct relation to scholastic success and has even been used as a
discriminant validation factor in the development of the widely used subjective wellbeing
questionnaire (Lyubomirsky and Lepper 1999). Our results show that parsing happiness
into its separate hedonic and eudaimonic components, and by looking at the integration
of these constructs by defining them as motives for action helps provide a clearer under-
standing of the association between happiness and academic success. The finding from the
current study is supported by Okun et al. (2009), who used structural equation modeling
to show that commitment to college mediated the relation between dispositional happiness
and GPA. Furthermore, goal striving was also positively correlated to both dispositional
happiness and GPA (Okun et al. 2009). Eudaimonic motives encompass striving for excel-
lence and the desire to develop the best in oneself and may be reflected in goal striving and
commitment to college. It is possible that college students who are able to engender eudai-
monic motives in their lives build a fertile foundation for a successful college trajectory.
In addition to academic success, we also evaluated negative emotional states with
respect to hedonic and eudaimonic motives. It was predicted that higher hedonic and eudai-
monic motives would be associated with lower depression, anxiety, and stress. Our results
demonstrated that in our sample, higher Eudaimonia, but not Hedonia was associated with
lower Depression. This finding is in line with a study by Telzer et al. (2014), which showed
that neural sensitivity to eudaimonic and hedonic rewards differentially predicted adoles-
cent depressive symptoms over time, such that individuals who have greater ventromedial
activity in response to eudaimonic decisions are more likely to have a decline in depressive
symptoms over time (Telzer et al. 2014). In another study, Henderson et al. (2013) looked
at hedonic and eudaimonic behaviors in relation to negative emotional states. They found
that hedonic behaviors, but not eudaimonic behaviors, were negatively associated with
depression and stress. Their study differed from the present study in two important ways.
First, they assessed behaviors rather than motives for action. It is possible that motives
versus behaviors have different effects; the shared and unique contributions of hedonic and
eudaimonic motives versus behaviors to emotional outcomes are yet to be explored. Sec-
ond, their sample consisted of community dwelling adults, who may benefit from different
happiness orientations. It is possible that a hedonic orientation may not exert a protective
effect on depression and stress in college, but that in an academic environment, a eudai-
monic orientation is more important for emotional outcomes.
It was also predicted that emotional outcomes, specifically the negative emotional
states, depression, anxiety, and stress, would differ among happiness groups, and that com-
pared to other groups, the Full Life would be associated with the best emotional outcomes
(i.e., lowest depression, anxiety, and stress). The groups differed significantly in emo-
tional outcomes, but it is unclear if Full Life individuals indeed garner the most benefit.
The discriminant function analysis showed that close to 98% of variance among groups is
accounted for by differences in Depression and Stress. Specifically, Depression and Stress
trends among the groups follow a similar direction: there is an increasing trend in both
Depression and Stress from the Full and Eudaimonic Life, to the Hedonic and to the Empty
Life groups. Full and Eudaimonic Life individuals were almost identical with respect to
self-reported Depression, Anxiety, and Stress.
Few other studies have investigated the combined effect of these distress constructs
in relation to hedonic and eudaimonic motives specifically, and more broadly, have not
incorporated both positive and negative aspects of emotional functioning when examining

13
 M. Kryza‑Lacombe et al.

relations to these orientations. This study investigated stress and psychological distress,
which does not account for the presence of positive dimensions of wellbeing. These are
also essential to consider. Peterson et al. (2005) found that simultaneous pursuit of pleasure
(hedonia), meaning (eudaimonia), and engagement (flow) was associated with the highest
degree of life satisfaction—one aspect of wellbeing. Furthermore, Huta and Ryan (2010) in
their validation study of the HEMA questionnaire, which was also utilized to asses hedonic
and eudaimonic motives in the present study, demonstrated that among the four happiness
groups, individuals living the Full Life were highest in positive affect, life meaning, elevat-
ing experience, and vitality. Specifically, they found that Full Life individuals differed sig-
nificantly from Empty Life individuals in these constructs. In light of the complexity of
wellbeing as a construct, future studies should look at hedonic and eudaimonic motives in
association with a comprehensive assessment of wellbeing that incorporates psychological,
physical, social, spiritual, and economic factors.
Overall, the present study suggests that eudaimonic motives are particularly important
for emotional outcomes in this diverse college population. With college life being associ-
ated with the pressure to succeed, individuals with high eudaimonic motives may hold an
advantage. In light of these results, interventions that seek to increase eudaimonic motives,
in particular, could be used strategically in the academic setting to support student out-
comes. Huta (2015) suggests authenticity, meaning, excellence, and growth as steps towards
eudaimonia, implicating one route to pursuing eudaimonia in practice. This intervention
approach is particularly important to address in diverse student populations, who may dis-
proportionally be met with barriers to success in higher education. Understanding possible
sources of stress and psychological distress in this population may provide further insight
into how these interventions may be structured. Previous research has focused on issues
of identity (e.g., feelings of not belonging, or not deserving to participate in higher educa-
tion) and associations with emotional outcomes (Cokley et al. 2013) with implications that
interventions may be fruitful. For example, Walton and Cohen (2011) showed that a brief
social-belonging intervention improved academic outcomes, cutting the achievement gap
between African–American and European–American students in half, in addition to dem-
onstrating improvements in multiple health and wellbeing outcomes observed over a 3-year
period post-intervention. Another longitudinal study looked at the effects of a skills sup-
port program on academic motivation and achievement in economically and educationally
disadvantaged first generation college students (Wibrowski et al. 2016). The authors found
that students in the program were able to significantly improve motivation compared to
baseline and achieve higher GPA in the end of the first, second, and third years of college
compared to regularly admitted students. Strategies that focus on modifying thoughts and
behaviors related to happiness have also been shown to be effective in increasing happiness
and resilience (Lyubomirsky and Della Porta 2010). One study, for example, showed that
a well-being intervention significantly improved eudaimonic well-being in a mixed sample
of city employees and students (Mills et al. 2016). These examples show that interventions
can improve achievement and motivation in diverse student populations and that changes in
happiness-related constructs are also possible. Thus, interventions that incorporate strate-
gies to engender eudaimonic motivation specifically may support students in their efforts
toward academic success, especially if they are fine-tuned to circumstances that are salient
to diverse populations.
There are several limitations to this study that warrant discussion. First, any conclusions
about potential causality should be made with caution. While we defined academic success
and negative emotional states (i.e., levels of depression, anxiety, and stress) as outcomes
of hedonic and eudaimonic motives, it is possible that such motives result from academic

13
Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives: Associations with Academic…

success, and stress and psychological distress. However, as our happiness measure was
phrased to assess trait-like, or longstanding motives for action, and GPA was not collected
until the end of the semester, there is evidence to suggest that happiness exerted an effect
on GPA and not vice versa. As such, future work should explore the influence of eudai-
monic and hedonic motives for action across time.
Furthermore, although it was demonstrated that eudaimonic motives are significantly
associated with academic achievement, it was quantified solely via the GPA of one semes-
ter, and it is unclear to what extent this example of achievement may translate to other
areas of life, or whether it is applicable to life outside of college in the long term. Future
studies should therefore follow urban college students longitudinally and examine col-
lege retention and graduation GPA as comprehensive measures of academic success, and
include other common life success indices such as health, income, altruistic behaviors, and
employment.
In this context, it is also important to further investigate the interplay of eudaimonic
and hedonic motives across time. Evidence suggests that hedonic motives are grounded in
the present, while eudaimonic motives may contribute to long-term goals (Huta 2016). It
may, therefore, be of particular interest to examine how the willingness to sacrifice basic
present-grounded pleasure needs in exchange for reaching a desired future state may be
particularly relevant to the achievement of such future-oriented outcomes (Huta 2016).
Another important limitation of this study is the sample size. For our measure of depres-
sion, anxiety, and stress we only collected data from 87 students; nevertheless, we found a
significant effect of happiness-related motives on stress and psychological distress, which
adds to the literature especially in light of our diverse population. Future work with larger
samples should explore how the effects of hedonic and eudaimonic motives may differ
across different cultural and socioeconomic populations. Of note is also that the internal
consistency of the HEMA scale was in the lower range of acceptable Cronbach alpha val-
ues (i.e., 0.79 for Hedonia and 0.75 for Eudaimonia). In Huta and Ryan’s (2010) valida-
tion study of the HEMA scale alpha values were 0.85 and 0.82, respectively. It is possible
that in our culturally diverse college sample answers to HEMA items were more variable.
Future studies should look at the psychometric properties of the measure in minority popu-
lations more closely.
It should also be re-emphasized that our measure of hedonia and eudaimonia is assess-
ing motives for activities rather than hedonic and eudaimonic behaviors. It is arguable that
motives alone do not lead to outcomes, but rather that behaviors exert an effect on out-
comes. While motives are certainly an integral part of actions, there are other factors that
influence what individuals do despite their intentions. Such extraneous factors may include
life circumstances, influence of other people, and illness. Nevertheless, hedonic and eudai-
monic motives are conceivably related to the amount of time spent engaging in behaviors
mirroring hedonic and eudaimonic pursuits. Future studies should measure both motives
and behaviors and relate them to each other and to a variety of life outcomes to identify if
motives and activities are both useful predictors of long-term life success.
Despite these limitations this study contributes to the literature and several strengths
should be pointed out. First, this study used objective measures of academic success (i.e.,
GPA derived from academic records) while self-report is the norm in this area of research.
Furthermore, the sample is culturally and ethnically diverse, which allows for more gen-
eralizable conclusions of the applicability of the findings as previous studies of this kind
have been conducted at universities with a predominantly White population.
In conclusion, this study identified that in a diverse urban college population levels of
eudaimonic motives may influence both GPA and emotional outcomes, both of which are

13
 M. Kryza‑Lacombe et al.

important indicators of college success. It also appears that hedonic motives may not be
associated with college success. As completion of a college degree is essential for both pri-
vate and public gains, it is a priority for institutions of higher education to identify students
at-risk and implement interventions that will not only empower students to succeed during
their pursuit of higher education, but also beyond the educational setting. Efforts to foster
eudaimonic motives for action in the college setting provides one promising intervention
approach.

Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge the research assistants of the O’Neill lab for their assis-
tance in data collection, Georg Matt, Ph.D., for his consultations on statistical analysis, and Jillian Lee Wig-
gins, Ph.D., for her comments on an early version of the manuscript. We thank the students for participating.

Funding This publication was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number SC2HD086868 (PI:
Sarah O’Neill, PhD). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily repre-
sent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

References
Acee, T. W., & Weinstein, C. E. (2010). Effects of a value-reappraisal intervention on statistics students’
motivation and performance. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78(4), 487–512. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/00220​97090​33527​53.
American College Health Association. (2016). Spring 2016 reference group executive summary. Retrieved
from http://www.acha-ncha.org/repor​ts_ACHA-NCHAI​Ic.html.
Andrews, B., & Wilding, J. M. (2004). The relation of depression and anxiety to life-stress and achievement
in students. British Journal of Psychology, 95(4), 509–521. https​://doi.org/10.1348/00071​26042​36980​
2.
Aristotle, (2001). Nichomachean ethics. In R. McKeon (Ed.), The basic works of Aristotle (pp. 928–1112).
New York, NY: Modern Library.
Barch, D., Pagliaccio, D., Belden, A., Harms, M. P., Gaffrey, M., Sylvester, C. M., et al. (2016). Effect of
hippocampal and amygdala connectivity on the relationship between preschool poverty and school-age
depression. American Journal of Psychiatry, 173(6), 625–634.
Bloom, D. E., Hartley, M., & Rosovsky, H. (2007). Beyond private gain: The public benefits of higher edu-
cation. In J. J. F. Forest & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), International handbook of higher education (Vol. 18,
pp. 293–308). Dordrecht: Springer. https​://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4012-2_15.
Bresó, E., Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2011). Can a self-efficacy-based intervention decrease burn-
out, increase engagement, and enhance performance? A quasi-experimental study. Higher Education,
61(4), 339–355. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1073​4-010-9334-6.
Broadie, S. (1991). Ethics with aristotle. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., & Castañeda, M. B. (1992). The role of finances in the persistence process: A
structural model. Research in Higher Education, 33(5), 571–593. https​://doi.org/10.1007/bf009​73759​.
Campbell-Sills, L., & Barlow, D. H. (2007). Incorporating emotion regulation into conceptualizations and
treatments of anxiety and mood disorders. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp.
542–559). New York: Guilford Press.
Chapell, M. S., Blanding, Z. B., Silverstein, M. E., Takahashi, M., Newman, B., Gubi, A., et al. (2005). Test
anxiety and academic performance in undergraduate and graduate students. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 97(2), 268–274. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.268.
Cokley, K., McClain, S., Enciso, A., & Martinez, M. (2013). An examination of the impact of minor-
ity status stress and impostor feelings on the mental health of diverse ethnic minority college

13
Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives: Associations with Academic…

students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 41(2), 82–95. https​://doi.org/10.100

2/j.2161-1912.2013.00029​.x.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: An introduction. Journal of Hap-
piness Studies, 9(1), 1–11. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1090​2-006-9018-1.
Delle Fave, A., Brdar, I., Wissing, M. P., Araujo, U., Solano, A. C., Freire, T., et al. (2016). Lay definitions
of happiness across nations: The primacy of inner harmony and relational connectedness. Frontiers in
psychology, 7, 30. https​://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg​.2016.00030​.
Douce, L. A., & Keeling, R. P. (2014). A strategic primer on college student mental health. Retrieved from
American Council on Education website: http://www.acene​t.edu/news-room/Docum​ents/A-Stude​nt-
Prime​r-on-Colle​ge-Menta​l-Healt​h.pdf.
Dunn, L. B., Iglewicz, A., & Moutier, C. (2008). A conceptual model of medical student well-being: Pro-
moting resilience and preventing burnout. Academic Psychiatry, 32(1), 44–53. https​://doi.org/10.1176/
appi.ap.32.1.44.
Eisenberg, D., Golberstein, E., & Hunt, J. B. (2009). Mental health and academic success in college. The BE
Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 9(1), 1–37. https​://doi.org/10.2202/1935-1682.2191.
Eisenberg, D., Hunt, J., & Speer, N. (2013). Mental health in American colleges and universities: Variation
across student subgroups and across campuses. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 201(1),
60–67. https​://doi.org/10.1097/nmd.0b013​e3182​7ab07​7.
Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-income, first generation stu-
dents. Retrieved from The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education website:
http://www.pelli​nstit​ute.org/downl​oads/publi​catio​ns-Movin​g_Beyon​d_Acces​s_2008.pdf.
Farruggia, S. P., Han, C., Watson, L., Moss, T. P., & Bottoms, B. L. (2016). Noncognitive factors and col-
lege student success. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice. https​://doi.
org/10.1177/15210​25116​66653​9.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage publications.
Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (Eds.). (2015). World happiness report 2015. Retrieved from Sustain-
able Development Solutions Network website: http://unsds​n.org/wp-conte​nt/uploa​ds/2015/04/WHR15​
.pdf.
Henderson, L. W., Knight, T., & Richardson, B. (2013). An exploration of the well-being benefits of
hedonic and eudaimonic behaviour. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(4), 322–336. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/17439​760.2013.80359​6.
Huta, V. (2015). The complementary roles of eudaimonia and hedonia and how they can be pursued in prac-
tice. In S. Joseph (Ed.), Positive psychology in practice: Promoting human flourishing in work, health,
education, and everyday life (2nd ed., pp. 216–246). NJ: Wiley. https​://doi.org/10.1002/97811​18996​
874.ch10.
Huta, V. (2016). Eudaimonic and hedonic orientations: Theoretical considerations and research findings.
In J. Vittersø (Ed.), Handbook of eudaimonic well-being (pp. 215–231). Cham: Springer. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-42445​-3_15.
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/s1090​2-009-9171-4.
Huta, V., & Waterman, A. S. (2014). Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia: Developing a classifi-
cation and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. Journal of Happi-
ness Studies, 15(6), 1425–1456. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1090​2-013-9485-0.
Jeynes, W. H. (2002). The relationship between the consumption of various drugs by adolescents and
their academic achievement. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 28(1), 15–35. https​
://doi.org/10.1081/ada-12000​1279.
John-Henderson, N. A., Rheinschmidt, M. L., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Francis, D. D. (2014). Perfor-
mance and inflammation outcomes predicted by different facets of SES under stereotype threat.
Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(3), 301–309. https​://doi.org/10.1177/19485​50613​
49422​6.
Jury, M., Smeding, A., Stephens, N. M., Nelson, J. E., Aelenei, C., & Darnon, C. (2017). The experience of
low-SES students in higher education: Psychological barriers to success and interventions to reduce
social-class inequality. Journal of Social Issues, 73(1), 23–41. https​://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12202​.
Kim-Prieto, C., Diener, E., Tamir, M., Scollon, C., & Diener, M. (2005). Integrating the diverse defini-
tions of happiness: A time-sequential framework of subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 6(3), 261–300. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1090​2-005-7226-8.
Logan, J., Hughes, T., & Logan, B. (2016). Overworked? An observation of the relationship between
student employment and academic performance. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,
Theory & Practice, 18(3), 250–262. https​://doi.org/10.1177/15210​25115​62277​7.

13
 M. Kryza‑Lacombe et al.

Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the depression anxiety and stress scales. Sydney,
NSW: Psychology Foundation of Australia.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Della Porta, M. D. (2010). Boosting happiness, buttressing resilience: Results from
cognitive and behavioral interventions. In J. W. Reich, A. J. Zautra, & J. S. Hall (Eds.), Handbook
of adult resilience (pp. 450–464). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and
construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46(2), 137–155. https​://doi.org/10.1023/a:10068​
24100​041.
Martin, R. C., & Dahlen, E. R. (2005). Cognitive emotion regulation in the prediction of depression,
anxiety, stress, and anger. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(7), 1249–1260. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.06.004.
Maslach, C., & Goldberg, J. (1998). Prevention of burnout: New perspectives. Applied and Preventive
Psychology, 7(1), 63–74. https​://doi.org/10.1016/s0962​-1849(98)80022​-x.
Merrick, A. D., Grieve, A., & Cogan, N. (2016). Psychological impacts of challenging behaviour and
motivational orientation in staff supporting individuals with autistic spectrum conditions. Autism.
https​://doi.org/10.1177/13623​61316​65485​7.
Mills, M. J., Fullagar, C. J., & Culbertson, S. S. (2016). Development and implementation of a multi-
faceted well-being intervention. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance,
3(4), 360–375. https​://doi.org/10.1108/joepp​-02-2016-0013.
Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (2003). Education, social status, and health. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de
Gruyter.
Mokrue, K., & Acri, M. C. (2015). Subjective health and health behaviors as predictors of symptoms
of depression and anxiety among ethnic minority college students. Social Work in Mental Health,
13(2), 186–200. https​://doi.org/10.1080/15332​985.2014.91123​8.
Oishi, S., Graham, J., Kesebir, S., & Galinha, I. C. (2013). Concepts of happiness across time and cul-
tures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(5), 559–577. https​://doi.org/10.1177/01461​
67213​48004​2.
Okun, M. A., Levy, R., Karoly, P., & Ruehlman, L. (2009). Dispositional happiness and college student
GPA: Unpacking a null relation. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(4), 711–715. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.03.010.
Perna, L. W. (2003). The private benefits of higher education: An examination of the earnings premium.
Research in Higher Education, 44(4), 451–472. https​://doi.org/10.1023/a:10242​37016​779.
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. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1090​
2-004-1278-z.
Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic
performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353–387. https​://
doi.org/10.1037/a0026​838.
Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and
study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261–
288. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychologi-
cal well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081. https​://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069.
Santos, V., Paes, F., Pereira, V., Arias-Carrión, O., Silva, A. C., Carta, M. G., et al. (2013). The role of
positive emotion and contributions of positive psychology in depression treatment: Systematic review.
Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health: CP & EMH, 9(1), 221–237. https​://doi.
org/10.2174/17450​17901​30901​0221.
Schneider, M., & Preckel, F. (2017). Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A system-
atic review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 143(6), 565–600. https​://doi.org/10.1037/bul00​
00098​.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psy-
chologist, 55(1), 5–14. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.5.
Shanafelt, T. D., Boone, S., Tan, L., Dyrbye, L. N., Sotile, W., Satele, D., et al. (2012). Burnout and satisfac-
tion with work-life balance among US physicians relative to the general US population. Archives of
Internal Medicine, 172(18), 1377–1385. https​://doi.org/10.1001/archi​ntern​med.2012.3199.
Snyder, T. D., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S. A. (2016). Digest of education statistics 2015 (NCES 2016-014).
Retrieved from National Center for Education Statistics website: https​://nces.ed.gov/pubs2​016/20160​
14.pdf.

13
Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives: Associations with Academic…

Soria, K. M., Stebleton, M. J., & Huesman, R. L. (2013). Class counts: Exploring differences in academic
and social integration between working-class and middle/upper-class students at large, public research
universities. Journal of College Student Retention, 15(2), 215–242. https​://doi.org/10.2190/cs.15.2.e.
Stebleton, M. J., Soria, K. M., & Huesman, R. L. (2014). First-generation students’ sense of belonging,
mental health, and use of counseling services at public research universities. Journal of College Coun-
seling, 17(1), 6–20. https​://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.2014.00044​.x.
Stephens, N. M., Hamedani, M. G., & Destin, M. (2014). Closing the social-class achievement gap: A dif-
ference-education intervention improves first-generation students’ academic performance and all stu-
dents’ college transition. Psychological Science, 25(4), 943–953. https​://doi.org/10.1177/09567​97613​
51834​9.
Tamir, M. (2016). Why do people regulate their emotions? A taxonomy of motives in emotion regulation.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20(3), 199–222. https​://doi.org/10.1177/10888​68315​58632​
5.
Telzer, E. H., Fuligni, A. J., Lieberman, M. D., & Galván, A. (2014). Neural sensitivity to eudaimonic and
hedonic rewards differentially predict adolescent depressive symptoms over time. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(18), 6600–6605. https​://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.13230​14111​.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2015). U.S. census quick facts. Retrieved from https​://www.censu​s.gov/quick​facts​/
table​/PST04​5216/00.
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health
outcomes of minority students. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 331(6023),
1447–1451. https​://doi.org/10.1126/scien​ce.11983​64.
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.
Wechsler, D. (1999). Manual for the Wechsler abbreviated intelligence scale (WASI). San Antonio, TX: The
Psychological Corporation.
Whalen, D., Saunders, K., & Shelley, M. (2010). Leveraging what we know to enhance short-term and
long-term retention of university students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory &
Practice, 11(3), 407–430. https​://doi.org/10.2190/cs.11.3.f.
Wibrowski, C. R., Matthews, W. K., & Kitsantas, A. (2016). The role of a skills learning support program
on first-generation college students’ self-regulation, motivation, and academic achievement. Journal of
College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice. https​://doi.org/10.1177/15210​25116​62915​2.
Wohlgemuth, D., Whalen, D., Sullivan, J., Nading, C., Shelley, M., & Wang, Y. (2006). Financial, aca-
demic, and environmental influences on the retention and graduation of students. Journal of College
Student Retention, 8(4), 457–475. https​://doi.org/10.2190/86x6-5vh8-3007-6918.
Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that per-
sonal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 302–314. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/00461​520.2012.72280​5.

13