Psychometric properties of measures of hedonic and eudaimonic orientations in Japan: The HEMA scale

  • Ryosuke AsanoEmail author
  • Saori Tsukamoto
  • Tasuku Igarashi
  • Veronika Huta


The Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives for Activities (HEMA) scale measures well-being as a series of orientations. We investigated the HEMA scale’s psychometric properties among two Japanese samples in longitudinal studies over periods of one month (N = 385) and two months (N = 224). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses identified three subscales of the HEMA scale: hedonic pleasure orientation, hedonic relaxation orientation, and eudaimonic orientation. On average, at a given point in time, the correlations between subscales were r = .58 for the hedonic pleasure and hedonic relaxation orientations; r = .56 for the hedonic pleasure and eudaimonic orientations; and r = .26 for the hedonic relaxation and eudaimonic orientations—while the internal consistencies were αs > .80 for all subscales. In both studies, the three HEMA subscales had test-retest correlations averaging rs = .51, which suggests that these orientations are temporally quite stable, yet they are also amenable to change. Longitudinal analyses showed correlations between the HEMA scale and external criteria: hedonic pleasure orientation was associated with life satisfaction, positive affect, personal growth, purpose in life, and sense of meaning; hedonic relaxation orientation was associated with life satisfaction, positive affect, calm affect, and personal growth; and eudaimonic orientation was associated with life satisfaction, positive affect, personal growth, purpose in life, and sense of meaning. Implications for future research on the HEMA scale are discussed.


Well-being Hedonia Eudaimonia Motives Psychometric properties 



The authors acknowledge Yoshiko Honma for helping to collect the data of Study 1.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

12144_2018_9954_MOESM1_ESM.docx (54 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 54.4 kb)


  1. Asano, R., Igarashi, T., & Tsukamoto, S. (2014). The hedonic and Eudaimonic motives for activities (HEMA) in Japan: The pursuit of well-being. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 85(1), 69–79. Scholar
  2. Bujacz, A., Vittersø, J., Huta, V., & Kaczmarek, L. D. (2014). Measuring hedonia and eudaimonia as motives for activities: Cross-national investigation through traditional and Bayesian structural equation modeling. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 984. Scholar
  3. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–134. Scholar
  4. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. Scholar
  5. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302. Scholar
  6. Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 403–425. Scholar
  7. Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2015). A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 113–147. Scholar
  8. Gruber, J., Mauss, I. B., & Tamir, M. (2011). A dark side of happiness? How, when, and why happiness is not always good. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(3), 222–233. Scholar
  9. Hitokoto, H., & Uchida, Y. (2015). Interdependent happiness: Theoretical importance and measurement validity. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16(1), 211–239. Scholar
  10. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. Scholar
  11. Huta, V. (2016). Eudaimonic and hedonic orientations: Theoretical considerations and research findings. In J. Vittersø (Ed.), Handbook of eudaimonic well-being (pp. 215–231). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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. Scholar
  13. 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. Scholar
  14. Joshanloo, M. (2014). Eastern conceptualizations of happiness: Fundamental differences with western views. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(2), 475–493. Scholar
  15. Joshanloo, M. (2016). Revisiting the empirical distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being using exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(5), 2023–2036. Scholar
  16. Joshanloo, M., & Niknam, S. (2017). The Tripartite Model of Mental Well-Being in Iran: Factorial and Discriminant Validity. In The tripartite model of mental well-being in. Iran: Factorial and discriminant validity. Current Psychology. Scholar
  17. Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (Eds.). (1999). Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  18. Kesebir, P., & Diener, E. (2008). In pursuit of happiness: Empirical answers to philosophical questions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(2), 117–125. Scholar
  19. Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Kurokawa, M. (2000). Culture, emotion, and well-being: Good feelings in Japan and the United States. Cognition and Emotion, 14(1), 93–124. Scholar
  20. Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Wood, A. M., Osborne, G., & Hurling, R. (2009). Measuring happiness: The higher order factor structure of subjective and psychological well-being measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(8), 878–884. Scholar
  21. Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803–855. Scholar
  22. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2017). Mplus user’s guide: Statistical analysis with latent variables (8th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  23. Nishita, Y. (2000). Diverse life-styles and psychological well-being in adult women. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 48(4), 433–443. Scholar
  24. Ogawa, T., Monchi, R., Kikuya, M., & Suzuki, N. (2000). Development of the general affect scales. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 71(3), 241–246. Scholar
  25. Oishi, S. (2009). Doing the science of happiness: What we learned from psychology. Tokyo: Shinyosha.Google Scholar
  26. Oishi, S., Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (2007). The optimum level of well-being: Can people be too happy? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 346–360. Scholar
  27. Oishi, S., Graham, J., Kesebir, S., & Galinha, I. C. (2013). Concepts of happiness across time and cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(5), 559–577. Scholar
  28. Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5(2), 164–172. Scholar
  29. Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Orientations to happiness and life satisfaction: The full life versus the empty life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6(1), 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  31. Raibley, J. R. (2012). Happiness is not well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(6), 1105–1129. Scholar
  32. Robitschek, C. (1998). Personal growth initiative: The construct and its measure. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 30(4), 183–198.Google Scholar
  33. Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161–1178. Scholar
  34. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166. Scholar
  35. 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. Scholar
  36. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081. Scholar
  37. Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727. Scholar
  38. Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 13–39. Scholar
  39. Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134(1), 138–161. Scholar
  40. Tsai, J. L., Knutson, B., & Fung, H. H. (2006). Cultural variation in affect valuation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(2), 288–307. Scholar
  41. Uchida, Y., & Kitayama, S. (2009). Happiness and unhappiness in east and west: Themes and variations. Emotion, 9(4), 441–456. Scholar
  42. Uchida, Y., Norasakkunkit, V., & Kitayama, S. (2004). Cultural constructions of happiness: Theory and empirical evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5(3), 223–239. Scholar
  43. 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. Scholar
  44. Waterman, A. S., Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., Ravert, R. D., Williams, M. K., Agocha, V. B., et al. (2010). The questionnaire for Eudaimonic well-being: Psychometric properties, demographic comparisons, and evidence of validity. Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(1), 41–61. Scholar
  45. Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 219–235. Scholar
  46. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. Scholar
  47. West, S. G., Taylor, A. B., & Wei, W. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 209–231). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyKurume UniversityKurumeJapan
  2. 2.Division of Liberal Arts and SciencesAichi Gakuin UniversityNisshinJapan
  3. 3.Graduate School of Education and Human DevelopmentNagoya UniversityNagoyaJapan
  4. 4.School of PsychologyUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations