跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.200.168.16) 您好!臺灣時間:2023/03/21 15:44
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:羅尹琳
研究生(外文):LO, YIN-LIN
論文名稱:日常活動的享樂與完善動機量表繁體中文版之信效度檢驗
論文名稱(外文):Validation of the Traditional Chinese Version of the Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives for Activities Scale
指導教授:櫻井正二郎櫻井正二郎引用關係吳進欽吳進欽引用關係
指導教授(外文):SAKURAI SHOJIROWU, CHIN-CHIN
口試委員:簡晉龍吳進欽何文澤
口試委員(外文):CHIEN, CHIN-LUNGWU, CHIN-CHINHO, WEN-TSO
口試日期:2022-07-06
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:高雄醫學大學
系所名稱:心理學系碩士班
學門:社會及行為科學學門
學類:心理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2022
畢業學年度:110
語文別:中文
論文頁數:86
中文關鍵詞:心理幸福感主觀幸福感因素分析完善動機享樂動機
外文關鍵詞:Eudaimonic motivesFactor analysisHedonic motivesPsychological well-beingSubjective well-being
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:170
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:31
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
在正向心理學的領域中,幸福研究有享樂主義(hedonia)與完善主義(eudaimonia)兩大觀點。近年來,學者發展出日常活動的享樂與完善動機量表(HEMA),以測量個人進行日常活動時的「享樂」與「完善」動機,也發現兩種動機對幸福感有不同效果。然而,HEMA迄今尚未有一經信度效檢驗之繁體中文版,且兩種動機在華人社會中的作用仍待探究。本研究目的在探討繁體中文版HEMA的信效度,及享樂和完善兩種動機對不同幸福感指標之效果。本研究採問卷調查法,參與者包括大學生、研究生與社會人士。研究一為橫斷式研究,有效樣本數為294;研究二為兩階段縱貫研究,有效樣本數為443。研究一發現如下:(1)透過探索性因素分析,刪去一題後,HEMA(12題)可抽取出「享樂動機」(6題)與「完善動機」(5題)兩個因素,且兩因素具有良好的內部一致性(.83以上);(2)享樂動機與主觀快樂有正相關;完善動機與個人成長、生活目的有正相關。研究二發現如下:(1)採用第一波資料,驗證性因素分析支持享樂與完善動機的雙因素模式;(2)第一時間點(T1)的享樂動機對第二時間點(T2)的主觀快樂有負向預測效果,T1的完善動機對T2的個人成長有正向預測效果,顯示不同動機對不同幸福指標有不同效果;(3)值得留意的,T1的各項幸福指標皆對T2的完善動機有正向預測效果。整體而言,本研究建立繁體中文版HEMA量表之信效度,也發現兩種動機與不同幸福指標可能是相互影響。最後,討論研究發現之意涵、研究限制、以及未來方向。
In positive psychology, there are two viewpoints in happiness research: hedonia and eudaimonia. Recently, the Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives for Activities (HEMA) scale have been developed to measure individual's hedonic and eudaimonic motives in daily activities, and found that two motives have diverse effects on well-being. However, the Traditional Chinese version of HEMA scale has not been tested and lacks reliability or validity. The role of these two motives should be further examined in Chinese communities. Our research aims to fulfill the gap by investigating the reliability and validity of the Traditional Chinese version of HEMA, and testing the effects of two motives on different aspects of well-being. The studies adopted the survey method in two studies; the participants include undergraduate students, graduate students, and community members. Study 1 was a cross-sectional study with a valid sample size of 294. Study 2 was a two-stage longitudinal study with a valid sample size of 443. The findings of Study 1 are as follows: (1) through exploratory factor analysis of the data, one item were deleted, HEMA (12 items) can extract into two factors, "hedonic motives" (6 items) and "eudaimonic motives" (5 items), the internal consistency was established (alpha is above of .83); (2) hedonic motives were positively correlated with subjective happiness where eudaimonic motives were positively correlated with personal growth and purpose in life. The findings of Study 2 are as follows: (1) using the first wave of data, confirmatory factor analysis supports a two-factor model of hedonic and eudaimonic motives; (2) Hedonic motives at the first time point (T1) negatively predicted subjective happiness at the second time point (T2), and eudaimonic motives at T1 positively predicted personal growth at T2. Research shows that different motives have diverse effects on well-being; (3) all aspects of the well-being of T1 positively predicted eudaimonic motives of T2. Overall, our research contributes to establishing the reliability and validity of the Traditional Chinese version of HEMA scale and finds that two motives and different aspects of well-being may be mutually influential. Finally, the findings, limitations, and future directions are also discussed.
第一章、緒論 1
第二章、文獻回顧 4
第一節:幸福感的享樂與完善主義觀點 4
第二節:日常活動的享樂與完善動機及量表 5
第三節:不同文化下的HEMA量表研究及待答 7
第四節:研究預期與驗證策略 15
第三章、研究一:量表翻譯與檢驗 18
第一節:研究方法 18
第二節:研究結果 23
第三節:研究小結 30
第四章、研究二:量表結構與信效度之驗證 32
第一節:研究方法 32
第二節:研究結果 36
第三節:研究小結 44
第五章、總結與討論 45
第一節:日常活動的享樂與完善動機量表的因素結構 45
第二節:兩種動機對幸福感指標之效果 47
第三節:幸福感對完善動機之正向效果 49
第四節:研究限制與未來方向 52
文獻參考 53
附錄一 研究一問卷 64
附錄二 研究二問卷 69
附錄三 研究工具使用同意書 77
李仁豪、余民寧(2016)。〈心理幸福感量表簡式中文版信效度及測量不變性: 以大學生為樣本並兼論測量不變性議題〉。《中華輔導與諮商學報》,(46),127-154。
周郁唯(2022)。《自我修養的幸福學:「心安理得」之概念分析及其量表編製》(碩士論文,高雄醫學大學心理學系碩士班)。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/25cj64
高旭繁(2013)。〈通往華人幸福之路: 性格特質與文化價值的雙重作用〉。《本土心理學研究》,(39),165-214。
陳韋穎(2020)。《我們應該追求更快樂嗎?中文版珍視快樂量表之向度及其預測效果》(碩士論文,高雄醫學大學心理學系碩士班)。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/6gd4nn
廖玲燕(2000)。《台灣本土社會讚許量表之編製及其心理歷程分析》(碩士論文,國立臺灣大學心理學研究所)。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/496674
簡晉龍、余麗樺、張群、鍾昆原(2017)。〈在福樂(Flourishing)之外:護理人員本土化幸福感量表之編製與檢驗〉。《教育與心理研究》,40(2),93。
簡晉龍、李美枝、黃囇莉(2009)。〈幸福之路: 雙重自我建構的分流與匯合〉。《中華心理學刊》,50(4),453-470。
Annas, J. (2008). Virtue ethics and the charge of egoism. In P. Bloomfield (Ed.), Morality and self-interest (pp. 205-221). Oxford University Press.
Asano, R., Igarashi, T., & Tsukamoto, S. (2014). The Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives for Activities (HEMA) in Japan: The pursuit of well-being. The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 85(1), 69-79. https://doi.org/10.4992/jjpsy.85.69
Asano, R., Tsukamoto, S., Igarashi, T., & Huta, V. (2018). Psychometric properties of measures of hedonic and eudaimonic orientations in Japan: The HEMA scale. Current Psychology, 40(1), 390-401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9954-z
Behzadnia, B., & Ryan, R. M. (2018). Eudaimonic and hedonic orientations in physical education and their relations with motivation and wellness. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 49(5), 363-385. https://doi.org/10.7352/IJSP.2018.49.363
Braaten, A., Huta, V., Tyrany, L., & Thompson, A. (2019). Hedonic and eudaimonic motives toward university studies: How they relate to each other and to well-being derived from school. Journal of Positive Psychology and Wellbeing, 3(2), 179-196.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301
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. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00984
Chien, C.-L., Chen, P.-L., Chu, P.-J., Wu, H.-Y., Chen, Y.-C., & Hsu, S.-C. (2019). The Chinese version of the Subjective Happiness Scale: Validation and convergence with multidimensional measures. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 38(2), 222-235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282919837403
Culbertson, S. S., Fullagar, C. J., & Mills, M. J. (2010). Feeling good and doing great: The relationship between psychological capital and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(4), 421–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020720
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34-43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.34
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., Smith, H., & Fujita, F. (1995). The personality structure of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(1), 130-141. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.1.130
Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., Kashdan, T. B., Short, J. L., & Jarden, A. (2016). Different types of well-being? A cross-cultural examination of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Psychological Assessment, 28(5), 471-482. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000209
Dodge, R., Daly, A., Huyton, J., & Sanders, L. (2012). The challenge of defining wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 2(3), 222-235. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v2i3.4
Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden–and–build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 359(1449), 1367-1377. https://doi.org/doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1512
Giuntoli, L., Condini, F., Ceccarini, F., Huta, V., & Vidotto, G. (2020). The different roles of hedonic and eudaimonic motives for activities in predicting functioning and well-being experiences. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22(4), 1657-1671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-020-00290-0
Huta, V. (2013). Pursuing eudaimonia versus hedonia: Distinctions, similarities, and relationships. In A. S. Waterman (Ed.), The best within us: Positive psychology perspectives on eudaimonia. (pp. 139-158). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14092-008
Huta, V. (2016). Eudaimonic and hedonic orientations: Theoretical considerations and research findings. In J. Vittersø (Ed.), Handbook of eudaimonic well-being (pp. 215-231). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42445-3_15
Huta, V. (2021). Hedonic and eudaimonic motives for activities—all versions HEMA HEMA-R HEEMA—english and all translations. Retrieved 13 Oct 2021 from https://veronikahuta.weebly.com/uploads/7/8/4/4/7844925/hedonic_and_eudaimonic_motives_for_activities_-_all_versions_hema_hema-r_heema_-_english_and_all_translations.docx
Huta, V., Pelletier, L. G., Baxter, D., & Thompson, A. (2012). How eudaimonic and hedonic motives relate to the well-being of close others. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7(5), 399-404. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2012.705318
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
Jia, N., Li, W., Zhang, L., & Kong, F. (2021). Beneficial effects of hedonic and eudaimonic motivations on subjective well-being in adolescents: A two-wave cross-lagged analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2021.1913641
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., Jose, P. E., & Kielpikowski, M. (2017). The value of exploratory structural equation modeling in identifying factor overlap in the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF): A study with a New Zealand sample. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(4), 1061-1074. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9767-4
Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: the empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 1007-1022. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.1007
Khumalo, I. P., Wilson-Fadiji, A., & Brouwers, S. A. (2020). Well-being orientations and time perspective across cultural tightness-looseness latent classes in Africa. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(5), 1681-1703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00151-5
Lee, Y.-C., Lin, Y.-C., Huang, C.-L., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). The construct and measurement of peace of mind. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(2), 571-590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9343-5
Li, R.-H. (2014). Reliability and validity of a shorter Chinese version for Ryff’s psychological well-being scale. Health Education Journal, 73(4), 446-452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0017896913485743
Li, W., Zhang, L., Jia, N., & Kong, F. (2021). Validation of the hedonic and eudaimonic motives for activities-revised scale in chinese adults. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(8), 3959. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18083959
Lin, L., & Chan, H.-W. (2020). The associations between happiness motives and well-being in China: The mediating role of psychological need satisfaction and frustration. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02198
Lin, L., Hua, L., & Li, J. (2022). Seeking pleasure or growth? The mediating role of happiness motives in the longitudinal relationship between social mobility beliefs and well-being in college students. Personality and Individual Differences, 184, 111170. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111170
Luthans, F., Luthans, K. W., & Luthans, B. C. (2004). Positive psychological capital: beyond human and social capital. Business Horizons, 47(1), 45-50. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2003.11.007
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:1006824100041
Martela, F., & Sheldon, K. M. (2019). Clarifying the concept of well-being: Psychological need satisfaction as the common core connecting eudaimonic and subjective well-being. Review of General Psychology, 23(4), 458-474. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268019880886
Pearce, K., Huta, V., & Voloaca, M. (2020). How eudaimonic and hedonic orientations map onto seeing beyond the ‘me, now, and tangible’. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 16(5), 610-621. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2020.1791943
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/s10902-004-1278-z
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(1), 141-166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141
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., Lee, Y. H., Essex, M. J., & Schmutte, P. S. (1994). My children and me: Midlife evaluations of grown children and of self. Psychology and Aging, 9(2), 195-205. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.9.2.195
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
Seaborn, K., Pennefather, P., & Fels, D. I. (2020). Eudaimonia and hedonia in the design and evaluation of a cooperative game for psychosocial well-being. Human–Computer Interaction, 35(4), 289-337. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2018.1555481
Sequeiros, H., Oliveira, T., & Thomas, M. A. (2021). The impact of IoT smart home services on psychological well-being. Information Systems Frontiers. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10118-8
Steger, M., Kashdan, T., & Oishi, S. (2008). Being good by doing good: Daily eudaimonic activity and well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(1), 22-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.03.004
Tsai, J. L. (2007). Ideal affect: Cultural causes and behavioral consequences. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(3), 242-259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00043.x
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
Tsai, J. L., Miao, F. F., Seppala, E., Fung, H. H., & Yeung, D. Y. (2007). Influence and adjustment goals: sources of cultural differences in ideal affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1102-1117. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1102
Vansteenkiste, M., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability: Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23(3), 263-280. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032359
Vittersø, J. (2003). Flow versus life satisfaction: A projective use of cartoons to illustrate the difference between the evaluation approach and the intrinsic motivation approach to subjective quality of life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4(2), 141-167. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024413112234
Waterman, A. S. (1981). Individualism and interdependence. American Psychologist, 36(7), 762–773. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.7.762
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
Zeng, Z., & Chen, H. (2020). Distinct associations of hedonic and eudaimonic motives with well-being: mediating role of self-control. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(15), 5547. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17155547
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊