Relational motivation and well-being: A cross-cultural comparison

Transcription

1 bs_bs_banner Japanese Psychological Research 2014, Volume 56, No. 4, doi: /jpr Relational motivation and well-being: A cross-cultural comparison LYNA YI and JONATHAN S. GORE* Eastern Kentucky University CHIE KANAGAWA Koshien University Abstract: Culture plays a crucial role in motivation. Personally autonomous reasons (PARs) for goals reflect the needs, desires, and commitment for oneself, whereas relationally autonomous reasons (RARs) for goals reflect the needs within close relationships. It was hypothesized that PARs are the better predictor of well-being for Americans, while RARs are the better predictor of well-being for Japanese. Onehundred and seventy American and 219 Japanese university students completed well-being questionnaires and rated seven goals on several attributes. The results confirmed that RARs were a better predictor of well-being for Japanese than for Americans, but PARs predicted well-being for both groups. Implications for theories of goal motivation are discussed. Key words: motivation, relationally autonomous reasons, psychological well-being, Japanese, Americans. Motivation has been the subject of interest for social psychologists for decades, from Maslow s (1943) needs hierarchy to Deci and Ryan s (1985) self-determination theory. At the beginning, theorists believed that humans were motivated to achieve goals to fulfill their needs (Maslow, 1943). According to this logic, people are motivated to work in order to receive money, buy food, and therefore to survive. However, this theory alone was not enough to help understand the concept of motivation. As more and more research has been done on the topic, it has been realized that motivation is a complex force that drives people to perform and attain certain goals. This in turn, is related to psychological well-being. Thus, motivation is an important factor not only because it helps people attain their goals, but because it also helps people feel good about themselves. Not everyone s source of motivation, however, is the same. One of the major factors that moderates how people are motivated is culture. Because different cultures emphasize different interests and values, it is important to identify which form of motivation predicts well-being between cultures. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the degree to which two forms of motivation predict well-being in two different cultures. Research on motivation reveals that, depending on whether a person s reasons are intrinsic or extrinsic, there will be a difference in the level of effort put into attaining the goal (Sheldon & Elliot, 1998). Extrinsic motivations are motivations that are driven externally and do not predict effort over time. In contrast, intrinsic motivations are motivations that are driven internally and tend to be the best predictor of effort. For example, if a student believes his reason for getting a good grade is to get money or praise, this may lead to increased effort for a short period of time, but he will be *Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to: Jonathan S. Gore, 127 Cammack Bldg, 521 Lancaster Ave, Richmond, KY 40475, USA. ( jonathan.gore@eku.edu) 2014 Japanese Psychological Association. Published by Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.

2 Relational motivation and well-being 321 less likely to exert effort to get the good grade over time. However, if his motivation toward receiving good grades is to help him pursue his dream career, then he would be more likely to work harder to get the grade and to continue to do so over time. Recent research on motivation can arguably provide the most insight on the understanding of perception of choice, motivation, and effort. These findings suggest that people prefer, enjoy, and continue their activities when there is perceived control over their external environment and choices (Condry, 1977; Deci, 1975, 1981; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Lepper & Malone, 1987; Malone & Lepper, 1987; Nuttin, 1973; Zuckerman, Porac, Lathin, Smith, & Deci, 1978). In contrast, the absence of both choice and control factors has been shown to produce a variety of negative effects on intrinsic motivation, life satisfaction, and health status (e.g., Deci, Speigel, Ryan, Koestner, & Kaufman, 1982; Schulz & Hanusa, 1978; Seligman, 1975). Thus, people are more motivated to pursue a goal and are overall more satisfied when they believe that they have a choice. Reasons for goal pursuit and the role of culture Research on goal motivation has generated two kinds of reasons for goal pursuit: personally autonomous reasons (PARs) and relationally autonomous reasons (RARs). PARs and RARs are intrinsically driven forms of motivation, but they differ from each other in the source of that intrinsic drive (Gore & Cross, 2006). In the following section, we outline the impact that PARs and RARs have on goal outcomes, and the differential impact these reasons have across cultures. Personally autonomous reasons (PARs). According to Sheldon and Elliot (1998), selfconcordance is one approach to understanding personal reasons. Sheldon and Houser-Marko (2001) defined self-concordance as the extent to which people pursue their set of personal goals with feelings of intrinsic interest and identity congruence rather than with feelings of introjected guilt and external compulsion (p. 153). In short, self-concordant reasons for goals are those that are experienced with high levels of autonomy and low levels of external control. They have also been referred to as PARs (Gore & Cross, 2006) because they primarily focus on the individual s sense of relative autonomy rather than types of autonomy that integrate the needs of others. People who pursue goals for PARs are more likely than others to work hard on their goals (Sheldon & Elliot, 1998, 1999), which increases the likelihood of them attaining those goals (Sheldon & Houser-Marko, 2001). In addition, Sheldon and Elliot s (1998, 1999) research shows that the attainment of goal through self-concordant reasons predicted better psychological regulation and better well-being than controlled goals (Chirkov, Ryan, Kim, & Kaplan, 2003; Ryan et al., 1999; Sheldon et al., 2004; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999; Sheldon & Houser-Marko, 2001). The effectiveness of PARs may not be a universal phenomenon. For members of collectivistic cultures, personal choice has significantly less intrinsic value than for those of an individualistic culture (Iyengar & Lepper, 1999; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Instead, they tend to be motivated by interconnectedness within their social groups (DeVos, 1985; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Miller, 1988; Shweder & Bourne, 1984; Triandis, 1990, 1995). More recent research suggests that these cultural differences in the promotion of personal autonomy may lead to differences in the degree to which PARs enhance well-being, but these studies have produced mixed results. For example, Oishi and Diener (2001) and Suh (2000) found that PARs only enhanced wellbeing for people from an individualistic culture but not for those from a collectivistic culture. In contrast, others have found that there are no differences between the cultures, particularly in terms of how PARs relate to well-being (Chirkov et al., 2003; Rudy, Sheldon, Awong, & Tan, 2007; Ryan et al., 1999; Sheldon et al., 2004). A possible reason for these discrepancies is that these studies only focused on a particular form of autonomous motivation, and they also

3 322 L. Yi, J. S. Gore, and C. Kanagawa focused on various forms of well-being. PARs do not fully answer the question of why people are motivated to attain their goals or how goals can increase well-being because it is unlikely that personal interests alone explain why people are motivated. Therefore, another factor, relationally autonomous reasons, or RARs, has been proposed to help explain goal pursuit. Relationally autonomous reasons (RARs). RARs are motives that reflect the needs, desires, and commitments within close relationships (Gore & Cross, 2006, p. 849). Despite the involvement of others, pursuing goals for RARS are not extrinsically driven. Instead, both RARs and PARs reflect intrinsic goal pursuits. The difference between RARs and PARs reasons for goal pursuit, however, is that PARs are focused primarily on the individual (e.g., my interests ) whereas RARs are focused on the relationship with a close other (e.g., my interests and yours or our interests ). Thus, people pursuing goals for RARs perceive the goal to be important to both them and others who are close to them. In conclusion, RARs represent a desire to attain outcomes that reflect the interests of both the individual and his or her close others (Gore & Cross, 2006). Both PARs and RARs are associated with positive goal outcomes, but they tend to predict different facets of the goal pursuit process. In both Japanese and American samples, Gore and Cross, 2006 and Gore, Cross, and Kanagawa, 2009 found that people whose goals were motivated by PARs felt an immediate sense of purpose, whereas people whose goals were motivated by RARs did not feel an immediate sense of purpose. Thus, PARs appear to serve an important function in a person s sense of well-being across cultures. To date, however, the relative importance of PARs and RARs in predicting well-being, and the investigation of the role of culture in this process, has only been examined with purpose in life as the well-being variable. This leaves out several other forms of well-being that have yet to be examined. The purpose of the current study is to examine a broader array of well-being variables, and how PARs and RARs predict them across cultures. Variations of well-being as goal outcomes A person s well-being can be defined in a variety of ways, but these variations in definition appear to fall into one of two categories: hedonic and eudaimonic well-being (also known as subjective and psychological wellbeing, respectively; see Chen, Jing, Hayes, & Lee, 2013). The following section defines these forms of well-being, and proposes the ways in which PARs, RARs, and culture relate to them. Hedonic well-being centers on the experience of pleasant emotions and moods, life satisfaction, and a low amount of negative emotions and moods (Diener, 1984). This is the most common form of well-being that is studied in psychological research (see Kahneman, Diener, & Schwarz, 2003 for a review). In the current study, we define hedonic well-being as: high levels of self-esteem, high levels of life satisfaction, and low levels of depression. In contrast, eudaimonic well-being is a form of well-being that focuses on positive goal pursuit experiences (Waterman, 1993). In response to the focus on hedonic well-being in the psychological literature, Ryff (1989) proposed six alternative, eudaimonic dimensions that had not yet been examined: self-acceptance, personal growth, environmental mastery, purpose in life, autonomy, and positive relations with others (see Ryff & Keyes, 1995 for measures of these dimensions). In a series of principal components analyses, researchers recently identified four of the dimensions (self-acceptance, personal growth, environmental mastery, and purpose in life) as stemming from a single factor, whereas positive relations with others and autonomy were separate factors (Abbott et al., 2006; Burns & Machin, 2009, 2010). As mentioned earlier, Gore et al. (2009) was the only cross-cultural study thus far to examine the relative associations PARs and RARs had on well-being, but they only examined purpose in life as an outcome. It could be surmised that those results would simply be replicated if we were to examine any of the other dimensions that loaded on the purpose in life factor. Thus,

4 Relational motivation and well-being 323 we decided to only focus on Ryff s dimensions of autonomy and positive relations with others in the current study. A second reason to examine these two dimensions is that they are directly related to the motivation variables. Autonomy and positive relations with others each reflect the primary focus of PARs and RARs, respectively. We are particularly interested in the association between RARs and positive relations with others, as relational forms of well-being are rarely examined in goal motivation research. To allow for a more thorough analysis of relational well-being, we also included relational esteem as an outcome variable. As hedonic well-being was the main focus of Oishi and Diener (2001) and of Suh (2000), we expect that PARs would be associated with this form of well-being for both cultures, as both PARs and hedonic well-being emphasize personal enjoyment. Eudaimonic well-being tends to be used as an outcome variable in most goal motivation studies that also examine crosscultural differences (Chirkov et al., 2003; Gore et al., 2009; Rudy et al., 2007; Ryan et al., 1999; Sheldon et al., 2004). In those studies, PARs were consistently associated with well-being in both cultures. Thus, we hypothesize that PARs would also be associated with the three measures of eudaimonic well-being in the current study. In contrast, we hypothesize that RARs would only be associated with hedonic well-being for members of collectivistic cultures, as this form of motivation should be associated with fulfilling cultural ideals only for members of collectivistic cultures. For members of individualistic cultures, the association between RARs and hedonic well-being should be weaker due to RARs emphasis on mutual enjoyment rather than solely on personal enjoyment. We also predict that the association between RARs and eudaimonic well-being would be stronger for members of a collectivistic culture than those from an individualistic culture. In addition, we hypothesized that this association would be particularly strong for the relational versions of eudaimonic well-being (i.e., positive relations with others and relational esteem). All of the six forms of well-being have been examined across various cultures and demographic backgrounds, but to date no one has examined neither how they are related to goal motives, nor how culture may influence the strength of these associations. The purpose of this present study is to examine how PARs and RARs uniquely predict various forms of both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, and to examine cross-cultural differences in these associations beyond purpose in life. We hypothesized that PARs would predict the six forms of well-being for both Americans and Japanese, whereas RARs would only predict well-being for Japanese. Method Participants and procedure The data collected by Gore et al. (2009) consisted of a large array of variables assessed from both American and Japanese participants. In their study, they examined part of this data set, particularly the data that corresponded to participants self-construal, goal motives, social support, goal effort and progress, and purpose in life. For our study, we used additional data from the data set, focusing only on goal motives and the additional well-being variables that were assessed. As a result, the participants and procedure of this study and that of Gore et al. (2009) are the same, but we examined a different portion of the data set. Therefore, we briefly describe the sample and procedure below, but we refer the reader to Gore et al. (2009) for additional details about the sample, the collection procedure, and the translation procedure. Participants were 170 American undergraduate students from Iowa State University (57 men, 112 women, 1 unspecified) and 219 Japanese undergraduate students from Koshien University (74 men, 114 women, 31 unspecified), 1 who participated in exchange for extra 1 Due to the high frequency of Japanese participants who did not specify gender, we conducted several tests to examine if they were systematically different from the other Japanese participants. First, we created a new dummy coded variable to indicate

5 324 L. Yi, J. S. Gore, and C. Kanagawa course credit. In the American sample, participants who were neither native speakers of English nor citizens of the USA were not included in the analyses. When the participants first arrived, they first completed a questionnaire that assessed a variety of personality and well-being variables. They were then asked to list seven goals that they were currently working on and to rate their reasons for pursuing each of the goals. Finally, participants were debriefed and dismissed. Materials A 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) was used for all measures unless otherwise stated. Composite reliabilities for the RAR and PAR indices were obtained by using the calculation described in Nunnally (1978). RARS and PARs. For each goal, participants rated eight statements regarding the extent to which the statements reflected their reasons for pursuing the goal. Participants were instructed that several reasons may apply to each goal, and to think of each reason as a possibility. RARs and PARs were measured using the items from Gore and Cross (2006). The autonomous RARs items were, I am pursuing this because the people involved make it fun and enjoyable and I am pursuing this because it is important to someone close to me. The controlled RARs items were, I am pursuing this because I would let someone else down if I did whether they specified gender or not (0 = unspecified, 1 = specified). Next, we conducted a series of independent samples t-tests using the new Specification variable as the independent variable, and all motivation and well-being variables were entered as the dependent variables. The results of this analysis yielded no significant differences between those who specified gender and those who did not. Finally, we examined the hypothesized associations after excluding participants who had not specified gender, and none of the coefficients were significantly different from the coefficients obtained when we had included those participants. It is likely that the high number of unspecified responses was due to the placement of that question in the header of the survey, which made it easy for participants to miss. not and I am pursuing this goal because other people expect me to. The autonomous PARs items were, I am pursuing this because of the fun and enjoyment it provides me and I am pursuing this because I really believe it is an important goal to have. The controlled PARs items were, I am pursuing this because I would feel guilty, ashamed, or anxious if I did not and I am pursuing this goal because the situation demands it. Following Sheldon and Elliot (1999), the RAR and PAR indices were constructed using the following procedure: the sum of the controlled items was subtracted from the sum of the autonomous items. This total was then standardized to create the RAR and PAR indices (Cronbach s α =.78 for RARs, Cronbach s α =.60 for PARs). Self-esteem. The 10-item Rosenberg Self- Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965; Cronbach s α =.90) was used to measure global self-esteem. This scale is well known for its high reliability and validity for measuring global self-esteem. An example of an item is, I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others. Life satisfaction. The 5-item Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985; Cronbach s α =.87) was used to measure a general feeling of satisfaction. The scale has been used extensively and has substantial psychometric properties. An example item is, The conditions of my life are excellent. Depression. The 20-item Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977; Cronbach s α =.90) was used to measure depression. The CES-D correlates strongly with the number of negative life events and other measures of depression, such as the Beck Depression Inventory (Beck, 1967). Respondents were asked to indicate how often they had felt certain ways in the past 2 weeks. Examples of items include, I felt depressed and I had crying spells. Participants rated the items using a 5-point scale (1 = never, 5 = very often).

6 Relational motivation and well-being 325 Table 1 Mean differences between Americans and Japanese on motivation and well-being Americans Japanese M SD M SD F Personally autonomous reasons Relationally autonomous reasons ** Self-esteem ** Life satisfaction ** Depression ** Autonomy ** Positive relations with others ** Relational esteem ** **p <.01. Autonomy. Ryff and Keyes (1995) 14-item Autonomy subscale (Cronbach s α =.89) was used as a measure of individuals desire to stand out and not be influenced by other people. An example item is, Being happy with myself is more important to me than having others approve of me. Positive relations with others. Ryff and Keyes (1995) 14-item Positive Relations with Others subscale (Cronbach s α =.87) measures the degree to which individuals have functional close relationships. An example item is, I feel like I get a lot out of my friendships. Relational self-esteem. A modified version of the 6-item Collective Self-Esteem Scale (CSE; Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992; Cronbach s α =.87) has been used in past studies to measure the extent to which individuals base their self-esteem on their involvement and satisfaction with their in-groups. A modification was implemented to focus on close relationships.an example item is, I am a cooperative participant in the close relationships I have. Analysis strategy Cultural group differences on the motivation and well-being variables were first tested using a MANOVA. To test the associations between the variables for the two groups, a multiple group structural equation model analysis was conducted using LISREL 8.8 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2006). This analysis yielded bivariate correlations, as well as the hypothesized associations. In the model, the two motivation variables (PARs and RARs) were specified as the exogenous predictor variables in the model, and the well-being variables (Self-Esteem, Life Satisfaction, Positive Relations with Others, Relational Esteem, Autonomy, and Depression) were specified as endogenous outcome variables. Furthermore, the associations between the motivation variables and among the well-being variables were estimated in the psi matrix. This model was estimated for both the American and Japanese samples. Preliminary analyses Results Group differences. The mean differences between the Americans and Japanese samples on Motives (PARs and RARs) and Wellbeing (Self-Esteem, Life Satisfaction, Positive Relations with Others, Relational Esteem, Autonomy, and Depression) were tested using a MANOVA with cultural group entered as the independent variable and the two motives six forms of well-being entered as the dependent variables. It was found that Americans scored significantly higher than their Japanese counterparts in RARs, Self-Esteem, Life Satisfaction, Positive Relations with Others, Relational Esteem, and Autonomy (see Table 1). However, Japanese scored significantly higher than Americans on Depression. None of these findings are particularly surprising, as East Asians

7 326 L. Yi, J. S. Gore, and C. Kanagawa Table 2 Zero-order correlations among variables between cultures Personally autonomous reasons.58**.35**.29**.42**.29**.31**.32** 2. Relationally autonomous reasons.57**.28*.35**.40**.25**.26**.30** 3. Self-esteem.33**.31**.54**.69**.43**.51**.53** 4. Life satisfaction.10.17*.53**.54**.21**.58**.43** 5. Depression.38**.24**.47**.38**.31**.48**.54** 6. Autonomy.33**.23**.49**.26**.31**.26**.28** 7. Positive relations with others.35**.38**.48**.29**.40**.23**.80** 8. Relational esteem.42**.42**.53**.26**.43**.27**.72** Note: Coefficients for the American sample (n = 170) are above the diagonal; coefficients for the Japanese sample (n = 219) are below the diagonal. *p <.05. **p <.01. Table 3 Results from path analysis of motivation variables predicting well-being variables across cultures Americans Japanese PARs RARs PARs RARs Self-esteem 0.29** ** 0.19** Life satisfaction ** * Depression 0.28** 0.24** 0.36** 0.05 Autonomy 0.22** ** 0.06 Positive relations with others 0.24** ** 0.27** Relational esteem 0.22** ** 0.27** Note. All coefficients are standardized betas. PARs = personally autonomous reasons; RARs = relationally autonomous reasons. *p <.05. **p <.01. often will score lower than Americans on wellbeing measures (Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama, 1999). Correlations. The zero-order correlations among all variables in the model showed that, for both groups, PARs and RARs scores were positively related to Self-Esteem, Life Satisfaction, Positive Relations with Others, Relational Esteem, and Autonomy, and were negatively related to Depression (see Table 2 for all correlations). However, the Americans PARs were positively associated with Life Satisfaction, whereas the association was nonsignificant for the Japanese. Cultural differences in the relationship between motivation and well-being It was hypothesized that PARs will predict both hedonic and eudaimonic forms of wellbeing across cultures, whereas RARs will predict both forms of well-being only for Japanese. In addition, we hypothesized that the associations between RARs and relational eudaimonic well-being will be particularly strong for Japanese. The multiple group model fit the data well, χ 2 (4) = 11.93, p <.01, RMSEA = 0.04; GFI = 0.99 and Standardized RMR = 0.05 for Americans, GFI = 0.99 and Standardized RMR = 0.03 for Japanese. Looking across the six dimensions of wellbeing, it was found that PARs were positively associated with Self-Esteem, Positive Relation with Others, Relational Esteem, and Autonomy, and negatively associated with Depression for both Americans and Japanese (see Table 3). Thus, the hypothesis that PARs would predict both forms of well-being across cultures was supported with all forms of wellbeing except life satisfaction.

8 Relational motivation and well-being 327 These results also indicated that RARs only predicted two hedonic well-being variables for Americans (Life Satisfaction and Depression); RARs were not associated with any of the eudaimonic well-being variables. For Japanese, RARs positively predicted two of the dimensions of hedonic well-being (Self-Esteem and Life Satisfaction), and the two relational eudaimonic well-being variables (Positive Relations with Others and Relational Esteem). Thus, the hypothesis that RARs would be associated with well-being more so for Japanese than for Americans was supported, particularly in terms of relational eudaimonic well-being. Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine the association between motives and various dimensions of psychological well-being across cultures. Specifically, we investigated the unique predictive ability of PARs and RARs on six domains of well-being: self-esteem, life satisfaction, depression, autonomy, positive relations with others, and relational self-esteem in the USA and Japan. PARs predicted all forms of well-being for both groups (except life satisfaction), whereas RARs predicted more of the well-being variables for the Japanese than for the Americans. In short, PARs appear to foster both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being across cultures, whereas RARs seem to only foster well-being in Japan, particularly relational forms of well-being. Implications The results of this study expand on previous findings by investigating the different two types of reasons for motivation in relation to hedonic and eudaimonic forms of well-being across two cultures. In particular, this study expanded on Gore et al. (2009), which demonstrated the different roles of PARs and RARs in predicting motivational outcomes, but they only examined one form of well-being (i.e., purpose in life). By looking at six factors of well-being, we were able to show that motivation based on personal reasons will enhance a person s well-being on many levels, such as having higher self-esteem and better relations with others, regardless of whether they are in a collectivistic or individualistic culture. This replicates research by Rudy et al., 2007 and Sheldon et al., 2004, who found no differences between cultures on goal pursuit in term of PARs and well-being. Our study is the first to demonstrate that this generally is the case across most forms of well-being. We also found that RARs were related to well-being more often for Japanese than for Americans, and this was particularly the case when examining relational forms of well-being. This replicates Oishi and Diener (2001) and Suh (2000), in that RARs were related to well-being more so for the members of the collectivistic culture, but not for members of the individualistic culture. The difference between our studies and theirs is that they only examined hedonic forms of well-being but did not include eudaimonic forms of well-being, nor did they examine the relative predictive ability of PARs versus RARs. In short, our results integrate the findings produced in the culture and motivation literature and we provide further insight into the distinct roles of PARs and RARs, not just in terms of goal motivation, but also in terms of various forms of well-being. Limitations and future directions This study investigated the extent to which motives relate to six domains of well-being between individualistic and collectivistic cultures. However, this study was based on selfreported ratings provided by the participants. This may jeopardize the results because the participants may not be able to provide an accurate answer. Also, self-reported ratings are likely to fluctuate depending on the mood of the person at the moment. Another limitation of this study is that only six domains of wellbeing were investigated. There may possibly be other domains that need to be examined so that a more accurate picture can be made. The low Cronbach s alpha for PARs is also another limitation of the study and may suggest that alternative measures should be used when examining cross-cultural differences in personal motives. The last limitation of this study

9 328 L. Yi, J. S. Gore, and C. Kanagawa is that it is not possible to generate a causal direction. In the analysis, it was assumed that motives are the predictor whereas the six domains of well-being are the outcomes. However, it may be possible that the six domains of well-being are actually the predictors of motives. Finally, there is a concern about the representativeness of the samples from these studies, as they were both obtained from only one academic institution to represent each culture. It is highly likely that the cases in both samples were considerably more motivated, educated, and optimistic about their future than others from the same culture. With these limitations in mind, more studies should attempt to find a more systematic method of measuring participants motives and well-being. This can be done by interviewing close others regarding a person s motives. Another way to help increase the accuracy of the self-report is to ask the participants to answer them at different time intervals so that an average score can be obtained. Future studies should focus on finding more domains that pertain to well-being so that a bigger and more accurate picture can be obtained. Conclusions In conclusion, this study found that RARs for goals are a better predictor of well-being for people from collectivistic than individualistic cultures. However, PARs for goals remain a consistent predictor of well-being regardless of whether they are from a collectivistic or an individualistic culture. Thus, more answers are provided for the concept of human motivation, and the degree to which personal and relational interests factor into feelings of worth, satisfaction, and the quality of one s relationships. References Abbott, R. A., Ploubidis, G. B., Huppert, F. A., Kuh, D., Wadsworth, M. E. J., & Croudace, T. J. (2006). Psychometric evaluation and predictive validity of Ryff s psychological well-being items in a UK cohort sample of women. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, Beck, A.T. (1967). Depression. New York: Harper and Row. Burns, R. A., & Machin, M. (2009). Investigating the structural validity of Ryff s psychological wellbeing scales across two samples. Social Indicators Research, 93, Burns, R. A., & Machin, M. (2010). Identifying gender differences in the independent effects of personality and psychological well-being on two broad affect components of subjective wellbeing. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, Chen, F. F., Jing, Y., Hayes, A., & Lee, J. M. (2013). Two concepts or two approaches? A bifactor analysis of psychological and subjective wellbeing. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, Condry, J. (1977). Enemies of exploration: Selfinitiated versus other initiated learning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum. Deci, E. L. (1981). The psychology of selfdetermination. Lexington, MA: Health. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum. Deci, E. L., Speigel, N. H., Ryan, R. M., Koestner, R., & Kaufman, M. (1982). The effects of performance standards on teaching styles: The behavior of controlling teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, DeVos, G. A. (1985). Dimensions of the self in Japanese culture. In A. J. Marsella, G. DeVos, & F. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and self: Asian and Western perspectives (pp ). New York: Tavistock. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, Gore, J. S., & Cross, S. E. (2006). Pursuing goal for us: Relationally autonomous reasons in long-term goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, Gore, J. S., Cross, S. E., & Kanagawa, C. (2009). Acting in our interests: Relational self-construal and goal motivation across cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 33,

10 Relational motivation and well-being 329 Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 106, Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.80 for Windows [computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc. Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (2003). Wellbeing: The foundations of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage. Lepper, M. R., & Malone, T. W. (1987). Intrinsic motivation and instructional effectiveness in computer-based education. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Cognitive and affective process analyses (pp ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective selfesteem scale: Self-evaluation of one s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction: Vol. 3. Conative and affective process analysis (pp ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, Miller, J. G. (1988). Bridging the content-structure dichotomy: Culture and the self. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The cross-cultural challenge to social psychology (pp ). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Nuttin, J. R. (1973). Pleasure and reward in human motivation and learning. In D. E. Berlyne & K. B. Madsen (Eds.), Pleasure, reward, preference (pp ). New York: Academic Press. Oishi, S., & Diener, E. (2001). Goals, culture, and subjective well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent selfimage. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rudy, D., Sheldon, K. M., Awong, T., & Tan, H. (2007). Autonomy, culture, and well-being: The benefits of inclusive autonomy. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, Ryan, R. M., Chirkov, V. I., Little, T. D., Sheldon, K. M., Timoshina, E., & Deci, E. L. (1999). The American dream in Russia: Extrinsic aspirations and well-being in two cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 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, Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, Schulz, R., & Hanusa, B. H. (1978). Long-term effects of control and predictability-enhancing interventions: Findings and ethical issues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, Seligman, E. E. (1975). The case for a versatile approach to analytical practice. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 20, Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing autonomous and controlled reasons for goals as predictors of effort and attainment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Ryan, R. M., Chirkov, V., Kim, Y., Wu, C., Demir, M., & Sun, Z. (2004). Self-concordance and subjective well-being in four cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, Sheldon, K. M., & Houser-Marko, L. (2001). Selfconcordance, goal attainment, and the pursuit of happiness: Can there be an upward spiral? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, Shweder, R. A., & Bourne, E. J. (1984). Does the concept of the person vary cross-culturally? In R. A. Shweder & R. A. LeVine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind, self and emotion (pp ). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Suh, E. M. (2000). Self, the hyphen between culture and subjective well-being. In E. Diener, E. M. Suh, E. Diener, & E. M. Suh (Eds.), Culture and subjective well-being (pp ). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Triandis, H. C. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. In J. Berman (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 37. Cross-cultural perspectives (pp ). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

11 330 L. Yi, J. S. Gore, and C. Kanagawa Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, Zuckerman, M., Porac, J., Lathin, D., Smith, R., & Deci, E. L. (1978). On the importance of selfdetermination for intrinsically motivated behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, (Received May 8, 2013; accepted March 8, 2014)