Parents Socialize Youth’s Motives for Eudaimonic Well-being but not Hedonic Well-being

• In Event: 1-178 - Focusing on Family Strengths: Understanding Positive Development in a Family Context

Integrative Statement

To pursue well-being or a good life, people generally strive for hedonia (pleasure and comfort) and eudaimonia (achieving one’s best self; Ryan & Deci, 2001). These motives have important implications in youth (Gentzler et al., 2018) and adults (Steger, Kashdan, & Oishi, 2008), but very little is known about how these fundamental motives develop. As an exception, Huta (2012) found that college students’ hedonic and eudaimonic motives were related to their reports of their parents’ endorsement of and modeling those pursuits. Links between parents’ and adolescents’ values also have been found (Whitbeck, 1988). Therefore, we expected that well-being motives are similarly socialized. In two studies, we investigated whether youth’s motives for hedonic and eudaimonic well-being were related to parents’ motives for themselves or how much they prioritize these motives for their children. We also explored moderated effects by youth age or gender, because eudaimonia may be more salient goal during adolescence than childhood (Hershberg et al., 2014) and within-gender socialization may be more pronounced.

Study 1 included 76 mothers and their 7-12 year old children (53% boys). Children were mostly White (88.4%) and middle class. Study 2 included 114 14-18 year-old adolescents (61% male), and 97 mothers and 57 fathers. Families were mostly middle-to-upper class and majority of adolescents were white (78.9%).

In both studies, parents completed the Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives for Activities Scale (HEMA; Huta & Ryan, 2010) that includes a 5-item hedonic motives scale (e.g., seeking relaxation; αs=.79-.88) and a 4-item eudaimonic motives scale (e.g., seeking to do what you believe in; αs=.82-.84). Parents also prioritized motives by rank ordering them based on how important they think each goal is for their child (1 as “most important,” 2 as next highest, etc.). Scores were reverse-coded and averaged for hedonic and eudaimonic priorities. In Study 1, children completed a child-adapted HEMA (hedonic α=.54; eudaimonic α=.56). In Study 2, adolescents completed the original HEMA (hedonic α=.65; eudaimonic α=.74).

We conducted regressions with parents’ motives predicting children’s motives, while including age, gender, and interaction terms. In Study 1, mothers’ hedonic motives for themselves or their child were not associated with children’s hedonic motives (Table 1). Mothers’ priority on children’s eudaimonic motives predicted children reporting more eudaimonic motives. In Study 2, regression models indicated that adolescents’ hedonic motives were not related to mothers’ or fathers’ hedonic motives (Table 1). However, an interaction between mothers’ eudaimonic motives and adolescent gender indicated mothers’ motives predicted more eudaimonic motives for daughters but not sons (Figure 1).

This research offers novel evidence showing that mothers’ prioritizing children’s eudaimonic pursuits was linked to children reporting more eudaimonic motives, and mothers’ own eudaimonic motives predicted more eudaimonic motives in adolescent girls. During childhood, parents may structure children’s lives with more eudaimonic activities, but adolescence may involve more adolescent-driven effects (choosing whom to model). Interestingly, youth’s hedonic motives were unrelated to parents’ motives, suggesting other factors contribute to these motives. Despite limitations (cross-sectional, small sample of fathers), this research has important applications concerning how well-being motives are taught.

Authors

• Amy Gentzler, West Virginia University
  Presenting Author

• Tyia K. Wilson, West Virginia University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Katy L. DeLong, West Virginia University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Jeffrey Hughes, West Virginia University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Amy Root, West Virginia University
  Non-Presenting Author