Introduction

The pursuit of well-being is a central issue in positive psychology. Previous research suggests that well-being is a complex construct, primarily understood through two perspectives: hedonia and eudaimonia1. Hedonia refers to the notion that well-being consists of pleasure or happiness2, whereas eudaimonia posits that well-being involves more than happiness, focusing instead on actualizing human potential3. Therefore, hedonia is associated with pleasure, enjoyment, comfort, and the absence of distress, whereas eudaimonia emphasizes growth, meaning authenticity, and excellence4. Examining the relationship between these two perspectives of well-being and other psychological theories1 indicated that hedonia aligns with expectancy-value theory (e.g5), which posits that well-being is a function of expecting to attain valued outcomes. Moreover, a theory related to eudaimonia is self-determination theory6, which proposes that the fulfillment of autonomy, competence, and relatedness are essential for psychological growth, integrity, and well-being.

Huta and Ryan7 conceptualized eudaimonia and hedonia as underlying motives for action rather than merely the surface content of behavior. Specifically, eudaimonic motive is defined as the pursuit of using or developing a person’s best qualities, whereas the hedonic motive is divided into two components: the pursuit of pleasure (pleasure motive) and the pursuit of comfort (the relaxation motive)7. As Huta and Ryan7 argued, eudaimonic and hedonic motives are conceptually distinct from the actual well-being experience (or outcomes). However, empirical studies have consistently linked both motives to well-being indicators such as positive affect, flourishing, vitality, and life satisfaction7,8,9. Understanding how these motives relate to well-being outcomes could offer practical methods for improving everyday well-being. However, we know little about the pathways that mediate the relationship between eudaimonic and hedonic motives and the experience of well-being.

This study focused on coping strategies as a potential mediator of the pathway between eudaimonic and hedonic motives and well-being outcomes. According to the transactional theory of stress and coping10, an individual’s ability to cope with and adapt to challenges arises from interactions between the person and their environment. We can broadly classify coping strategies into two categories: approach coping and avoidant coping11. Approach coping includes strategies such as active coping, planning, positive reframing, and seeking emotional support, whereas avoidant coping encompasses behavioral disengagement, denial, and self-blame11. These categories are also referred to by other names in the literature, including adaptive versus maladaptive coping12 or positive versus negative coping13. Given that an individual’s response to stress is closely linked to emotional well-being, it is reasonable to examine the relationship between coping strategies, well-being motives, and well-being outcomes.

Several empirical studies have reported that coping strategies are associated with eudaimonic and hedonic motives9,14. For example, Giuntoli et al.9 explored the relationship between coping strategies and these motives, showing that eudaimonic motive is positively associated with active coping and planning and negatively associated with behavioral disengagement. Similarly, pleasure motive is positively linked to positive reinterpretation and growth but negatively associated with behavioral disengagement9. In contrast, the relaxation motive is positively associated with behavioral disengagement and denial9. These findings suggest that the association between well-being motives and coping strategies varies depending on the specific component of the motive.

Coping strategies also influence well-being outcomes15,16,17. For instance, Ștefenel et al.17 examined the relationship between coping strategies and life satisfaction. Life satisfaction is defined as “a global assessment of a person’s quality of life according to their chosen criteria”18 and is one of the most used outcome measures in the well-being literature7. Ștefenel et al.17 revealed that life satisfaction is positively associated with active coping and planning but negatively related to behavioral disengagement and self-blame. Similarly, Dijkstra and Homan15 found that confronting problems and seeking social support are linked to higher levels of psychological well-being. These results suggest that well-being outcomes are generally positively associated with adaptive coping strategies and negatively associated with maladaptive ones.

Previous studies have demonstrated that coping strategies are linked to both eudaimonic and hedonic motives and well-being outcomes, suggesting that how individuals manage negative situations may be a critical pathway in the relationship between these motives and well-being outcomes. Therefore, the present study investigated whether coping strategies mediate the relationship between eudaimonic and hedonic motives and life satisfaction. Although various coping strategies have been identified11,19, this study focused on two key coping strategies: active coping and behavioral disengagement. These strategies represent two major coping categories—approach coping and avoidant coping11. Moreover, previous studies have shown that these strategies are highly associated with eudaimonic and hedonic motives and life satisfaction. Specifically, active coping is associated with eudaimonic motive9 and life satisfaction17. In contrast, behavioral disengagement is linked to pleasure and relaxation motives9 and life satisfaction17, as outlined above.

We used the Expanded Response Styles Questionnaire (ERSQ)20, an extension of the Response Styles Questionnaire (RSQ)19, to assess two response styles based on these coping strategies. The original RSQ assesses two response styles: using the ruminative responses and distracting responses subscales. However, Matsumoto20 noted that these scales did not fully capture the various response styles used in adverse situations. Consequently, Matsumoto20 added two additional subscales: (1) facing the fact (i.e., “I think about how to solve that problem”), corresponding to active coping, and (2) evasion (i.e., “I postpone solving the problem”), corresponding to behavioral disengagement. The present study focused on facing the fact and evasion.

We proposed the following hypotheses based on prior findings:

(1) The eudaimonic motive improves life satisfaction by increasing facing the fact because active coping is positively associated with the eudaimonic motive9 and life satisfaction17. Additionally, the eudaimonic motive enhances life satisfaction by reducing evasion because behavioral disengagement is negatively associated with the eudaimonic motive9 and life satisfaction17.

(2) The pleasure motive improves life satisfaction by reducing evasion because behavioral disengagement is negatively associated with the pleasure motive9 and life satisfaction17.

(3) The relaxation motive impairs life satisfaction by increasing evasion because behavioral disengagement is positively associated with the relaxation motive9 and negatively associated with life satisfaction17.

Methods

Participants

We conducted an online survey in collaboration with a research company. The company emailed invitations to individuals registered as potential survey participants. A total of 11,041 individuals completed the web-based questionnaires on their personal computers or tablets. Table 1 presents the sample’s demographic characteristics. Some individuals did not provide demographic information (n = 53 for gender; n = 2,475 for household income). We examined differences between participants who provided complete information (n = 8,550, 77.4%) and those who did not (n = 2,491, 22.6%). See Table 1s of the supplementary materials.

Table 1 Participants’ demographic characteristics.
Full size table

The research company administered the survey, and the authors only received the participants’ questionnaire responses. Therefore, the approval to perform the experimental protocols were waived by the Ethics Committee of the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST). However, all methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. The survey followed the procedures outlined in the “Act on the Protection of Personal Information” and adhered to JIS Q 15,001 (Personal Information Protection Management Systems). The research company informed all participants that participation was voluntary and they could withdraw from the survey at any time, in which case we would discard their data. Due to the retrospective nature of the study, the need to obtain the informed consent was waived by the Ethics Committee of the AIST. Participants were informed that the survey aimed to gather data on daily activities. However, it did not disclose the specific objectives of the current study.

Measures

Life satisfaction

We used the Japanese version of the Satisfaction with Life Scale to assess Life satisfaction (SWLS)21,22. The SWLS consists of five items (e.g., “In most ways, my life is close to my ideal”). Participants rated each item on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The SWLS demonstrated high internal consistency in this study, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.90 in this study.

Eudaimonic and hedonic motives

We assessed Eudaimonic and hedonic motives using the Japanese version of the Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives for Activities–Revised (HEMA-R)4,23. The HEMA-R includes three subscales: (1) eudaimonic motive (e.g., “Seeking to use the best in yourself”), (2) pleasure motive (e.g., “Seeking enjoyment”), and (3) relaxation motive (e.g., “Seeking relaxation”). The subscales consist of four items assessing the eudaimonic motive, three assessing the pleasure motive, and four assessing the relaxation motive. Participants respond to the HEMA-R items on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). In this study, the HEMA-R showed good internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of 0.86 for the eudaimonic motive, 0.87 for the pleasure motive, and 0.90 for the relaxation motive.

Response style

Response style was measured using the Expanded Response Styles Questionnaire (ERSQ)20, which includes four subscales: facing the fact (e.g., “I think about how to solve that problem”), evasion (e.g., “I postpone solving the problem”), diversion (e.g., “I listen to music”), and negative introspection (e.g., “I think that it is my fault”). Table 2s in the supplementary materials provides English translations of all ERSQ items. The ERSQ contains six items in the facing the fact subscale, ten in the evasion subscale, seven in the diversion subscale, and seven in the negative introspection. Participants respond to each item on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (rarely) to 4 (always).

We only included facing the fact and evasion subscales in the present analysis because the study tested the hypothesis that facing the fact and evasion mediate between eudaimonic and hedonic motives and life satisfaction. The ERSQ demonstrated acceptable internal consistency in this study, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of 0.84 for facing the fact and 0.83 for evasion.

Covariates

We included seven socio-demographic variables as covariates: age, gender, marital status, number of children, household income, employment status, and place of residence. We treated the participants’ age as a continuous variable. We dichotomized marital status into “married” and “not married,” whereas we categorized the number of children as “none” or “one or more children.” Household income was categorized based on annual earnings into three groups: “low” (< 4 million JPY [28,000 USD]), “medium” (4–8 million JPY [28,000–56,000 USD]), and “high” (> 8 million JPY [56,000 USD]). Employment status was classified into four categories: “full-time employment,” “part-time employment,” “unemployed,” and “other” (with other including self-employment, students, temporary sick leave, carers, and those at home looking after children). We categorized the place of residence into two groups: “urban” (populations over 1,000,000 residents) and “suburban or rural” (populations under 1,000,000 residents).

Statistical analysis

As a preliminary analysis, we conducted correlation analyses to examine the relationships between eudaimonic and hedonic motives, life satisfaction, and response styles. Next, we used path analysis, aiming to test the mediating effect of response styles on the relationship between eudaimonic and hedonic motives and life satisfaction. In the path analysis, we entered the three subscales of eudaimonic and hedonic motives (eudaimonic motive, pleasure motive, and relaxation motive) as predictor variables, with life satisfaction as the outcome variable. We included two response-style subscales (facing the fact and evasion) as mediator variables. First, we conducted path analysis without covariates, and then we incorporated covariates into the model. Age, gender, marital status, number of children, household income, employment status, and residence place were covariates.

We utilized all available data, employing the full information maximum likelihood algorithm and implementing bootstrapping techniques (n = 5,000) in these path analyses. As the hypothesized model incorporated every potential pathway among the study variables, it was just-identified (i.e., 0 degrees of freedom), rendering model fit reporting unnecessary. We conducted all statistical analyses using Mplus Version 8.424.

Results

Descriptive statistics

Data on life satisfaction, eudaimonic and hedonic motives, and response styles were collected from all the participants (n = 11,041). The mean scores for these variables are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Mean life satisfaction, Eudaimonic and hedonic motives scores, response styles, and correlation coefficients among those variables.
Full size table

Correlation analysis

The results of the correlation analysis are shown in Table 2. Life satisfaction significantly and positively correlated with the eudaimonic motive (r = 0.223, p < 0.0001), the pleasure motive (r = 0.206, p < 0.0001), and the relaxation motive (r = 0.097, p < 0.0001). Additionally, life satisfaction showed a significant positive correlation with facing the fact (r = 0.231, p < 0.0001) and a significant negative correlation with evasion (r = -0.073, p < 0.0001).

Further, the eudaimonic motive was significantly and positively correlated with facing the fact (r = 0.366, p < 0.0001) and significantly negatively correlated with evasion (r = -0.034, p = 0.0004). Both pleasure motive and relaxation motives were significantly and positively correlated with facing the fact (r = 0.291, p < 0.0001 for the pleasure motive; r = 0.187, p < 0.0001 for the relaxation motive) and evasion (r = 0.040, p < 0.0001 for the pleasure motive; r = 0.098, p < 0.0001 for the relaxation motive).

Path analysis

Figure 1 and Table 3 present the direct effects of the path analysis without covariates. In the crude model, life satisfaction was positively predicted by the eudaimonic motive (β = 0.080, Standard error [SE] = 0.014, p < 0.001) and pleasure motive (β = 0.171, SE = 0.017, p < 0.001). In contrast, it was negatively predicted by the relaxation motive (β = -0.095, SE = 0.014, p < 0.001).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Path analysis for eudaimonic and hedonic motives’ effects on life satisfaction via response styles in crude model. The estimates are standardized coefficients. Asterisks indicate significant coefficient (p < 0.05)

Full size image
Table 3 Direct effects of crude path analysis model for Eudaimonic and hedonic motives’ effects on life satisfaction via response styles.
Full size table

In addition, in the crude model, life satisfaction was significantly and positively predicted by facing the fact (β = 0.199, SE = 0.011, p < 0.001), whereas it was significantly and negatively predicted by evasion (β = -0.117, SE = 0.011, p < 0.001).

Facing the fact was significantly and positively predicted by the eudaimonic motive (β = 0.309, SE = 0.012, p < 0.001 and pleasure motive (β = 0.135, SE = 0.016, p < 0.001, whereas it was significantly and negatively predicted by relaxation motive (β = -0.065, SE = 0.014, p = 0.001). Meanwhile, evasion was significantly and positively predicted by the relaxation motive (β = 0.154, SE = 0.015, p < 0.001), whereas it was significantly and negatively predicted by the eudaimonic motive (β = -0.107, SE = 0.014, p < 0.001).

The significant direct effects in the crude model were replicated after adjusting for covariates. Table 3s in the supplementary materials presents the direct effects of the adjusted model.

Mediation analysis

Table 4 provides an overview of the mediation analysis results, which are indirect effects of the path analysis without the covariates. In the crude model, there was significant mediation for the effect of the eudaimonic motive on life satisfaction through response style (total indirect effect: β = 0.074, SE = 0.005, p < 0.001). Analysis of specific indirect effects revealed that the eudaimonic motive predicted life satisfaction through both facing the fact (β = 0.061, SE = 0.004, p < 0.001) and evasion (β = 0.012, SE = 0.002, p < 0.001), although the beta coefficients were not exceptionally high.

Table 4 Indirect effects of crude path analysis model for Eudaimonic and hedonic motives’ effects on life satisfaction via response styles.
Full size table

In the crude model, mediation for the effect of pleasure motive on life satisfaction through response style was also significant (total indirect effect: β = 0.027, SE = 0.004, p < 0.001). Specific indirect effects indicated that pleasure motive predicted life satisfaction through facing the fact (β = 0.027, SE = 0.003, p < 0.001).

The mediation was also significant for the crude model’s relaxation motive (total indirect effect: β = -0.031, SE = 0.004, p < 0.001). Specific indirect effects indicated that the relaxation motive predicted life satisfaction through facing the fact (β = -0.013, SE = 0.003, p = 0.001) and evasion (β = -0.018, SE = 0.002, p < 0.001).

The significant indirect effects observed in the crude model remained in the adjusted model (see Table 4s in the supplementary materials).

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate the mediating effect of response style on the relationship between motives for well-being and life satisfaction. The mediation effects were significant, even though they were smaller than the direct effects of well-being motives on life satisfaction. Thus, the present findings suggest that response styles play a role in the emergence of eudaimonic and hedonic motivation concerning well-being outcomes. The specific pathways differed depending on the component of the well-being motive (eudaimonic, pleasure, or relaxation).

The pathway from eudaimonic motive to life satisfaction through response style

The path analysis revealed that the eudaimonic motive is positively associated with facing the fact and negatively associated with evasion. These findings are consistent with previous research, demonstrating a positive link between the eudaimonic motive and active coping and a negative link with behavioral disengagement9. Notably, the mediation analysis suggested that the eudaimonic motive increased life satisfaction by enhancing facing the fact and reducing evasion. These findings supported the study’s hypothesis regarding the mediation effect of response style on the association between the eudaimonic motive and life satisfaction. The findings of this study are natural, given that the eudaimonic motive is strongly associated with the long-term perspective, persistence, and striving for future goals instead of immediate rewards25.

The pathway from pleasure motive to life satisfaction through response style

The result regarding the pleasure motive differs somewhat from our initial hypothesis that the pleasure motive enhances life satisfaction by reducing evasion. This hypothesis was based on prior research by Giuntoli et al.9, which found that pleasure motive was negatively associated with behavioral disengagement and did not show a significant relationship with active coping. However, the path analysis in the present study indicated that the pleasure motive was positively associated with facing the facts but not with evasion. More importantly, the mediation analysis suggested that the pleasure motive enhances life satisfaction by promoting facing the fact. Our findings align with expectations regarding the positive impact of pleasure motive on well-being; however, they did not support our prediction about the mediating role of evasion. It is challenging to pinpoint the reasons for this discrepancy, particularly given the differences between the present study and previous research. One notable difference is the demographic characteristics of the participants: the present study included Japanese individuals aged 18 to 89 years, whereas the Giuntoli et al.9 study focused on Italian participants aged 18 to 30 years. Scholars have reported cultural differences in coping strategies between Asians and European Americans. For instance, Asians are more likely to use problem avoidance than European Americans (e.g.,26). This difference has been attributed to the collectivist culture in Asia, which prioritizes preserving social harmony over directly confronting problems27. Therefore, further research is needed to determine whether the present study’s findings can be replicated in other cultural contexts, such as European Americans.

The pathway from relaxation motive to life satisfaction through response style

The path analysis revealed that the relaxation motive is negatively associated with facing the fact and positively associated with evasion. Crucially, the mediation analysis suggested that the relaxation motive impairs life satisfaction by decreasing facing the fact and increasing evasion. The findings support our hypothesis regarding the role of evasion as a mediator: that the relaxation motive reduces life satisfaction through increased evasion. This result aligns with previous research showing that the relaxation motive is positively associated with behavioral disengagement9. However, the role of decreased facing the fact as a mediator was unexpected, as prior studies found no significant relationship between the relaxation motive and active coping9. Further studies are needed to confirm this novel finding.

Comparison among eudaimonic and hedonic motives

The present study revealed that response styles mediate the pathway from eudaimonic and hedonic motives to life satisfaction, generally supporting our hypothesis. A study by McMahan and Renken28 found that meaning in life mediates the relationship between the eudaimonic conception and self-reported well-being. The current findings provide evidence for an additional mediator in the relationship between motives for well-being and the experience of well-being. Identifying other mediating factors in the pathway from the eudaimonic motive to well-being outcome would offer valuable insights for enhancing well-being in everyday life.

It might be helpful to compare the mediating roles of response styles between motives for well-being. The present study showed that the roles of response styles as mediators were similar between the eudaimonic and pleasure motives because an increased level of facing the fact was a common pathway to life satisfaction for both motives. This finding aligns with previous research suggesting that hedonic and eudaimonic well-being overlap conceptually and may represent psychological mechanisms that operate together29. However, an additional mediator for the eudaimonic motive was decreased evasion, one of the maladaptive response styles. Therefore, these results suggest that the eudaimonic motive may foster well-being through response styles more effectively than the pleasure motive, as suggested by previous findings9.

Comparing the roles of response styles as mediators between pleasure and relaxation motives indicated a considerable difference. This study found that the pleasure motive improved life satisfaction through response styles, whereas the relaxation motive impaired it. This finding is exciting because studies have often categorized pleasure and relaxation motives under hedonic motives. Studies have presented mixed findings on the factorial structure of hedonic motives. Some have considered pleasure and relaxation motives a single factor7,30, whereas others have treated them as distinct9,31,32. Our findings support the latter perspective, as pleasure and relaxation motives influence well-being in opposite ways through their associated response styles.

Strengths and limitations of the present study

The present study has several strengths. Firstly, it investigated a large sample (n = 11,041) with a wide age distribution (ranging from 18 to 89 years). As a result, the findings are not limited to a specific demographic group, such as university students or older adults. Secondly, we collected detailed demographic information, including age, gender, marital status, and annual income, and conducted statistical analyses both with and without these variables as covariates. The results showed that the significant findings in the crude model remained after adjusting for covariates. This procedure allowed us to control for the potential influence of demographic factors on the effects of mediation. Thirdly, parallel-processing path analysis enabled us to examine complex relationships among multiple variables simultaneously, providing robust insights into the mediating effects of response styles.

However, several limitations should also be acknowledged. Firstly, the present study uses a cross-sectional design; thus, it is hard to conclude the direction of the effects. Therefore, future studies should collect and analyze longitudinal data to examine the causal relationships between eudaimonic and hedonic motives, life satisfaction, and response styles. Secondly, we assessed response styles using the ERSQ. Although facing the fact and evasion, the two response styles used in this study, respectively, correspond to active coping and behavioral disengagement20, the ERSQ is less commonly used than other measures such as the Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE)11. Future studies must replicate this study’s findings using more widely established measures. Thirdly, missing demographic data for certain participants led to notable differences in demographic characteristics between those with complete data (i.e., the ‘listwise deletion’ sample, n = 8,550) and those with incomplete data (see Supplement, Table 1s). To mitigate this, we reanalyzed the data using the listwise deletion sample, and the findings remained consistent with those from the full sample (see Supplement, Tables 5s and 6s).

Conclusions

This study shows that response style is a crucial mediator between eudaimonic and hedonic motives and life satisfaction. Specifically, the study found that the eudaimonic motive enhances life satisfaction by increasing facing the fact and reducing evasion. Similarly, the pleasure motive (a hedonic motive) improves life satisfaction by increasing facing the fact, whereas the relaxation motive (another type of hedonic motive) impairs life satisfaction by decreasing facing the fact and increasing evasion.

Life satisfaction is based on individuals’ subjective evaluations of their overall lives. Given the present finding that higher levels of eudaimonic and pleasure motives are associated with a stronger drive to manage adverse events, the accumulated experiences of striving for and successfully managing such events throughout life may contribute to greater well-being, as reflected in life satisfaction. Furthermore, our findings suggest that pleasure and relaxation motives are associated with life satisfaction in distinct ways, although some previous studies have categorized both as components of the hedonic motive. Thus, distinguishing between pleasure and relaxation motives may be essential for improving well-being.

Although our findings showed that response styles significantly mediated the associations between eudaimonic and hedonic motives and life satisfaction, the effect sizes were relatively small. Future research is needed to confirm these findings and explore additional mediators that may further clarify the relationship between eudaimonic and hedonic motives and the experience of well-being to develop practical strategies for promoting increased well-being in daily life.