Top

Journal of Happiness Studies

Published in:

19-06-2023 | Research Paper

Pleasure or Meaning: Subjective Well-Being Orientations and the Willingness to Help Close Versus Distant Others

Authors: Hagit Sabato, Sapir Bar-Ilan

Published in: Journal of Happiness Studies | Issue 6/2023

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

We examined the role of two Subjective well-being orientations, hedonism (maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain) and eudemonia (a desire for meaningful life), in prosocial behavior toward a close help recipient versus a distant one. Study 1 examined individual differences in levels of hedonism and eudemonia, while studies 2 and 3 used a priming manipulation to enhance the salience of the two orientations. In all three studies we found that these orientations interact with the attributes of the help recipient during the decision to help. Specifically, hedonism was found to be positively associated with prosocial acts when the recipient was presented as a close other (a friend, as opposed to an unfamiliar student; or a specific identified target, as opposed to a general one). Conversely, eudemonia predicted greater donations to more general or distant causes. A moderated mediation analysis (Study 3) suggests that the hedonic orientation increased donations specifically to closer recipients (the identified victim), due to the heightened emotional reaction raised by this help target. However, the increased donations to the general help target under eudemonic orientation was not driven by emotional reactions.

previous article Social Connection Constellations and Individual Well-Being Typologies: Using the Loglinear Modeling Approach with Latent Variables

next article State Contexts, Job Insecurity, and Subjective Well-being in the Time of COVID-19

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Available only for authorised users

For a detailed review, see (Diener et al., 2018; Keyes, 2006).

All analyses were also run on the help items, which revealed very similar results. See supplementary materials.

Since the data in Study 1 are based on self-reporting, we tested for common method variable (CMV). Results indicated that bias due to CMV is less likely—see Supplementary Materials.

In all our studies, repeating the analyses with demographic variables (age and gender) as covariates, revealed the same significant patterns (see Supplementary Materials).

The recipient’s closeness is a dichotomous variable, entered as a dummy variable, which was coded 0 for an unfamiliar other, and 1 for a close friend.

Note that although the first step was marginally non-significant, the role of the Eudemonic orientation significantly contributed to the model (t = 2.21, β = .20, p = .03)—such that participants who scored higher in the Eudemonic orientation were willing to devote more time to help.

Repeating the same regression analysis while adding Life Satisfaction and while adding Positive Emotions as a constant to the first step of the model, revealed very similar results. A regression analyses with the life satisfaction, the recipients’ closeness and the interaction between them, as predictors of time devoted to help revealed a positive direction for the effect of life satisfaction, although far from a significant level. See Supplementary Materials.

All the money raised in this study was subsequently donated by the experimenter to an Israeli organization that helps children with cancer.

In addition, we compared between the three studies in terms of demographic variables, see Supplementary Materials.

This applies specially to Study 1, which was run during COVID-19 first lockdown. Since we wanted to keep the study’s manipulation (that refer to the lockdown’s restrictions of quarantine) identical for all participants, we could not collect more data when the lockdown was lifted and the restrictions changed, since the scenario was no longer relevant.

Agerström, J., & Björklund, F. (2009). Moral concerns are greater for temporally distant events and are moderated by value strength. Social Cognition, 27(2), 261–282. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2009.27.2.261CrossRef

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.

Aknin, L. B., Dunn, E. W., & Norton, M. I. (2012). Happiness runs in a circular motion: Evidence for a positive feedback loop between prosocial spending and happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(2), 347–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-011-9267-5CrossRef

Aknin, L. B., Dunn, E. W., Whillans, A. V., Grant, A. M., & Norton, M. I. (2013). Making a difference matters: Impact unlocks the emotional benefits of prosocial spending. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 88, 90–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2013.01.008CrossRef

Aknin, L. B., Van Boven, L., & Johnson-Graham, L. (2015). Abstract construals make the emotional rewards of prosocial behavior more salient. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(5), 458–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.967801CrossRef

Aknin, L. B., Van de Vondervoort, J. W., & Hamlin, J. K. (2018). Positive feelings reward and promote prosocial behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 20, 55–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.08.017CrossRef

Allen, J. B., & Ferrand, J. L. (1999). Environmental locus of control, sympathy, and proenvironmental behavior: A test of Geller’s actively caring hypothesis. Environment and Behavior, 31(3), 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139169921972137CrossRef

Amato, P. R. (1990). Personality and social network involvement as predictors of helping behavior in everyday life. Social Psychology Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786867CrossRef

Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), 464–477. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234133CrossRef

Anic, P., & Tončić, M. (2013). Orientations to happiness, subjective well-being and life goals. Psihologijske Teme, 22(1), 135–153.

Bareket, O., Ein-Gar, D., & Kogut, T. (2022). I will help you survive but not thrive: Helping decisions in situations that empower women. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302221108437CrossRef

Batson, C. D., Sager, K., Garst, E., Kang, M., Rubchinsky, K., & Dawson, K. (1997). Is empathy-induced helping due to self–other merging? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 495–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.495CrossRef

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., Aaker, J. L., & Garbinsky, E. N. (2013). Some key differences between a happy life and a meaningful life. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(6), 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.830764CrossRef

Bjälkebring, P., Västfjäll, D., Dickert, S., & Slovic, P. (2016). Greater emotional gain from giving in older adults: Age-related positivity bias in charitable giving. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 846. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00846CrossRef

Blau, P. M. (2017). Exchange and power in social life. Routledge.CrossRef

Brañas-Garza, P., Capraro, V., & Rascon-Ramirez, E. (2018). Gender differences in altruism on Mechanical Turk: Expectations and actual behaviour. Economics Letters, 170, 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2018.05.022CrossRef

Brdar, I., Rijavec, M., & Dubravka, M. (2009). Life goals and well-being: Are extrinsic aspirations always detrimental to well-being? Psychological Topics, 18(2), 317–334.

Cialdini, R. B., Baumann, D. J., & Kenrick, D. T. (1981). Insights from sadness: A three-step model of the development of altruism as hedonism. Developmental Review, 1(3), 207–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(81)90018-6CrossRef

Cole, T., & Teboul, B. (2004). Non-zero-sum collaboration, reciprocity, and the preference for similarity: Developing an adaptive model of close relational functioning. Personal Relationships, 11, 135–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00075.xCrossRef

Crisp, R. (Ed.). (2000). The nicomachean ethics. Cambridge University Press.

Dakin, B. C., Laham, S. M., Tan, N. P. J., & Bastian, B. (2021). Searching for meaning is associated with costly prosociality. PLoS ONE, 16(10), e0258769. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258769CrossRef

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.55.1.34CrossRef

Diener, E. D., 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_13CrossRef

Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (1999). personality and subjective well-being. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 213–229). Russell Sage Foundation.

Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Tay, L. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers.

Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Biswas-Diener, R., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., & Oishi, S. (2009). New measures of well-being. In E. Diener (Ed.), Assessing well-being (pp. 247–266). Springer.CrossRef

Duncan, B. (1999). Modeling charitable contributions of time and money. Journal of Public Economics, 72(2), 213–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(98)00097-8CrossRef

Ehrhart, M. G., & Naumann, S. E. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: A group norms approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 960–974. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.960CrossRef

Eres, R., & Molenberghs, P. (2013). The influence of group membership on the neural correlates involved in empathy. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 176. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00176CrossRef

Erlandsson, A., Björklund, F., & Bäckström, M. (2015). Emotional reactions, perceived impact and perceived responsibility mediate the identifiable victim effect, proportion dominance effect and in-group effect respectively. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.11.003CrossRef

Eyal, T., & Liberman, N. (2012). Morality and psychological distance: A construal level theory perspective. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil (pp. 185–202). American Psychological Association.CrossRef

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149CrossRef

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146CrossRef

Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 453–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.453CrossRef

Gebauer, J. E., Riketta, M., Broemer, P., & Maio, G. R. (2008). Pleasure and pressure based prosocial motivation: Divergent relations to subjective well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(2), 399–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.07.002CrossRef

Genevsky, A., Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., & Knutson, B. (2013). Neural underpinnings of the identifiable victim effect: Affect shifts preferences for giving. Journal of Neuroscience, 33(43), 17188–17196. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2348-13.2013CrossRef

Gonzalez-Mulé, E., DeGeest, D. S., McCormick, B. W., Seong, J. Y., & Brown, K. G. (2014). Can we get some cooperation around here? The mediating role of group norms on the relationship between team personality and individual helping behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 988–999. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037278CrossRef

Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7(1), 17–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(64)90039-6CrossRef

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

Heintzelman, S. J. (2018). Eudaimonia in the contemporary science ofsubjective well-being: Psychological well-being, self-determination, and meaning in life. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being (pp. 1–14). DEF Publishers.

Hinde, R. A., & Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1987). Interpersonal relationships and child development. Developmental Review, 7(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(87)90002-5CrossRef

Hui, B. P., Ng, J. C., Berzaghi, E., Cunningham-Amos, L. A., & Kogan, A. (2020). Rewards of kindness? A meta-analysis of the link between prosociality and well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 146(12), 1084–1116. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000298CrossRef

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/10.1037/14092-008CrossRef

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/s10902-009-9171-4CrossRef

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/s10902-013-9485-0CrossRef

Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (Eds.). (1999). Well-being: Foundations of hedonic psychology. Russell Sage Foundation.

Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2006). Would you be happier if you were richer? A focusing illusion. Science, 312(5782), 1908–1910. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1129688CrossRef

Keyes, C. L. (2006). Subjective well-being in mental health and human development research worldwide: An introduction. Social Indicators Research, 77(1), 1–10.CrossRef

Keyes, C. L., & Annas, J. (2009). Feeling good and functioning well: Distinctive concepts in ancient philosophy and contemporary science. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(3), 197–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760902844228CrossRef

Kim, J., Kang, P., & Choi, I. (2014). Pleasure now, meaning later: Temporal dynamics between pleasure and meaning. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.07.018CrossRef

Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005a). The “identified victim” effect: An identified group, or just a single individual? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18(3), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.492CrossRef

Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005b). The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.02.003CrossRef

Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2007). “One of us”: Outstanding willingness to help save a single identified compatriot. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104(2), 150–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.04.006CrossRef

Kogut, T., Ritov, I., Rubaltelli, E., & Liberman, N. (2018). How far is the suffering? The role of psychological distance and victims’ identifiability in donation decisions. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(5), 458–466.CrossRef

Kushlev, K., Radosic, N., & Diener, E. (2022). Subjective well-being and prosociality around the globe: Happy people give more of their time and money to others. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(4), 849–861. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211043379CrossRef

Lambert, L., Passmore, H. A., & Holder, M. D. (2015). Foundational frameworks of positive psychology: Mapping well-being orientations. Canadian Psychology/psychologie Canadienne, 56(3), 311–321. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000033CrossRef

Lansford, J. E. (2018). A lifespan perspective on subjective well-being. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers.

Lyubomirsky, S., & Layous, K. (2013). How do simple positive activities increase well-being? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(1), 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412469809CrossRef

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:1006824100041CrossRef

Maner, J. K., & Gailliot, M. T. (2007). Altruism and egoism: Prosocial motivations for helping depend on relationship context. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(2), 347–358. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.364CrossRef

McManus, R. M., Kleiman-Weiner, M., & Young, L. (2020). What we owe to family: The impact of special obligations on moral judgment. Psychological Science, 31(3), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619900321CrossRef

Meier, S., & Stutzer, A. (2008). Is volunteering rewarding in itself? Economica, 75(297), 39–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.2007.00597.xCrossRef

Moche, H., & Västfjäll, D. (2022). To give or to take money? The effects of choice on prosocial spending and happiness. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 17(5), 742–753. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2021.1940248CrossRef

Oishi, S., Diener, E., Choi, D. W., Kim-Prieto, C., & Choi, I. (2007). The dynamics of daily events and well-being across cultures: When less is more. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 685–698. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.685CrossRef

Pearce, K., Huta, V., & Voloaca, M. (2021). 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/10.1080/17439760.2020.1791943CrossRef

Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. (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-zCrossRef

Peterson, C., Ruch, W., Beermann, U., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. (2007). Strengths of character, orientations to happiness, and life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(3), 149–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760701228938CrossRef

Plagnol, A. C., & Huppert, F. A. (2010). Happy to help? Exploring the factors associated with variations in rates of volunteering across Europe. Social Indicators Research, 97, 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9494-xCrossRef

Rand, D. G., Brescoll, V. L., Everett, J. A., Capraro, V., & Barcelo, H. (2016). Social heuristics and social roles: Intuition favors altruism for women but not for men. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(4), 389–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000154CrossRef

Runyan, J. D., Fry, B. N., Steenbergh, T. A., Arbuckle, N. L., Dunbar, K., & Devers, E. E. (2019). Using experience sampling to examine links between compassion, eudaimonia, and pro-social behavior. Journal of Personality, 87(3), 690–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12426CrossRef

Rushton, J. P. (1980). Altruism, socialization, and society. Prentice-Hall.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68CrossRef

Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Living well: A self-determination theory perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 139–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9023-4CrossRef

Sabato, H., & Kogut, T. (2019). Feel good, do good? Subjective well-being and sharing behavior among children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 177, 335–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.08.009CrossRef

Sabato, H., & Kogut, T. (2021). Happy to help—if it’s not too sad: The effect of mood on helping identifiable and unidentifiable victims. PLoS ONE, 16(6), e0252278. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252278CrossRef

Schlenker, B. R., & Britt, T. W. (2001). Strategically controlling information to help friends: Effects of empathy and friendship strength on beneficial impression management. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(5), 357–372. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2000.1454CrossRef

Schönbrodt, F. D., & Perugini, M. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5), 609–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009CrossRef

Shlefer, S., & Kogut, T. (2021). How did it feel? Affect as a feedback system in repeated donation decisions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 97, 104203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104203CrossRef

Small, D. A. (2015). On the psychology of the identifiable victim effect. In G. Cohen, N. Daniels, & N. Eyal (Eds.), Identified versus statistical lives: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 13–16). Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Helping a victim or helping the victim: Altruism and identifiability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022299422219CrossRef

Small, D. A., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.005CrossRef

Son, J., & Wilson, J. (2012). Volunteer work and hedonic, eudemonic, and social well-being. Sociological Forum, 27(3), 658–681. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2012.01340.xCrossRef

Steger, M. F., Kashdan, T. B., & 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.2007.03.004CrossRef

Sturmer, S., & Snyder, M. (2009). Helping “us” versus “them”: Toward a group-level theory of helping and altruism within and across group boundaries. In S. Sturmer & M. Snyder (Eds.), The psychology of prosocial behaviour: Group processes, intergroup relations, and helping (pp. 33–58). Blackwell.CrossRef

Stürmer, S., Snyder, M., Kropp, A., & Siem, B. (2006). Empathy-motivated helping: The moderating role of group membership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(7), 943–956. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206287363CrossRef

Suh, E. M., & Koo, J. (2008). Comparing subjective well-being across cultures and nations: The “what” and “why” questions. In M. Eid & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjective well-being (pp. 414–427). Guilford Press.

Thoits, P. A., & Hewitt, L. N. (2001). Volunteer work and well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42(2), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090173CrossRef

Thormar, S. B., Gersons, B. P. R., Juen, B., Marschang, A., Djakababa, M. N., & Olff, M. (2010). The mental health impact of volunteering in a disaster setting: A review. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 198(8), 529–538. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0b013e3181ea1fa9CrossRef

Touré-Tillery, M., & Fishbach, A. (2017). Too far to help: The effect of perceived distance on the expected impact and likelihood of charitable action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(6), 860–876. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000089CrossRef

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.403CrossRef

Van Tongeren, D. R., Green, J. D., Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., & Hulsey, T. L. (2016). Prosociality enhances meaning in life. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(3), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1048814CrossRef

Venhoeven, L. A., Bolderdijk, J. W., & Steg, L. (2013). Explaining the paradox: How pro-environmental behaviour can both thwart and foster well-being. Sustainability, 5(4), 1372–1386. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5041372CrossRef

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/10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.678CrossRef

Waterman, A. S. (2007). On the importance of distinguishing hedonia and eudaimonia when contemplating the hedonic treadmill. American Psychologist, 62(6), 612–613. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X62.6.612CrossRef

Weidman, A. C., Sowden, W. J., Berg, M. K., & Kross, E. (2020). Punish or protect? How close relationships shape responses to moral violations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(5), 693–708. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219873485CrossRef

Title: Pleasure or Meaning: Subjective Well-Being Orientations and the Willingness to Help Close Versus Distant Others
Authors: Hagit Sabato
Sapir Bar-Ilan
Publication date: 19-06-2023
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Journal of Happiness Studies / Issue 6/2023
Print ISSN: 1389-4978
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7780
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-023-00668-w

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 6/2023

The Relationship Between Personality Traits and Well-Being via Brain Functional Connectivity

Informal Caregivers and Life Satisfaction: Empirical Evidence from the Netherlands

Social Connection Constellations and Individual Well-Being Typologies: Using the Loglinear Modeling Approach with Latent Variables

What’s Your Humor Profile? A Latent Profile Analysis on the State-Trait Model of Cheerfulness as the Temperamental Basis of Humor

Exploring the Effects of Consumption Expenditures on Life Satisfaction in China

Mindfulness and Subjective Well-being Among Chinese Adolescents: A Longitudinal Study and a Weekly Diary Investigation