AKTİVİTELER İÇİN HEDONİK, ÖDAMONİK VE DIŞ GÜDÜMLÜ MOTİVASYONLAR ÖLÇEĞİ: TÜRKÇE UYARLAMA, GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Abstract

Çalışmada, Aktiviteler için Hedonik, Ödamonik ve Dış Güdümlü Motivasyonlar (AHÖDM) Ölçeği’nin Türkçe uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması yapılması amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmanın örneklem grubu, 18 yaş ve üzeri, 435 katılımcıdan oluşmaktadır. Ölçeğin psikometrik özelliklerini test etmek için doğrulayıcı ve açımlayıcı faktör analizleri kullanılmış, güvenilirlik puanları için Cronbach alfa değerlerine bakılmıştır. Değişkenler arası ilişki ise Pearson korelasyon testi ile değerlendirilmiştir. Doğrulayıcı ve açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonuçlarına göre, AHÖDM ölçeğinin orijinal formu ile eş biçimde dört faktörlü bir yapı gösterdiği gözlenmiştir. Söz konusu dört alt boyut için Cronbach alfa değerleri; Ödamonik Motivasyon (ÖM) için .71, Hedonik Haz Motivasyon (H-HM) için .81, Hedonik Konfor Motivasyon (H-KM) için .57 ve Dış Güdümlü Motivasyon (DGM) için .86 olarak elde edilmiştir. ÖM ve H-HM ile iyi oluş, yaşam doyumu ve mutluluk puanları arasında pozitif yönde ilişki saptanmıştır. H-HM, H-KM ve DGM ile anksiyete ve stres puanları arasında pozitif, H-KM ve DGM ile ayrıca depresyon puanları arasında pozitif yönlü ilişki saptanmıştır. Sonuç olarak, çalışma bulguları AHÖDM ölçeği Türkçe versiyonunun bireylerde aktiviteler için hedonik, ödamonik ve dış güdümlü motivasyonlarını değerlendirmek için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçüm aracı olduğunu göstermiştir.

Keywords

• davranış
• hedonik motivasyon
• ödamonik motivasyon
• dış güdümlü motivasyon
• psikometrik özellik

Ethical Statement

Makale içinde sunulan verilerin, bilgilerin ve dokümanların akademik ve etik kurallar çerçevesinde elde edildiğini, tüm bilgi, belge, değerlendirme ve sonuçların bilimsel etik ve ahlak kurallara uygun olarak sunulduğunu, makale çalışmasında yararlanılan eserlerin tümünün uygun atıfta bulunarak kaynak gösterildiğini, kullanılan verilerde ve ortaya çıkan sonuçlarda herhangi bir değişiklik yapılmadığını, bu makalede sunulan çalışmanın özgün olduğunu; bildirir, aksi bir durumda aleyhime doğabilecek tüm hak kayıplarını kabullendiğimi beyan ederim.

Thanks

Çalışmanın veri toplama aşamasında desteklerinden dolayı Beyzanur Demirkaya, Elif Bilge Aytaç, Yasemin Özer ve Buğra Orhan'a teşekkür ederim.

HEDONIC, EUDAIMONIC AND EXTERNAL MOTIVES FOR ACTIVITIES SCALE: A STUDY ON THE TURKISH ADAPTATION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

Abstract

The study aimed to adapt the Activities for Hedonic, Eudaimonic and Extrinsic Motivations (HEEMA) scale into Turkish and to examine its validity and reliability. Data were collected from a total of 435 participants aged 18 years and older. Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses was employed to test the psychometric properties of the scale, and Cronbach's alpha coefficients were calculated to assess internal consistency. Relationships among variables were assessed using Pearson correlation test. According to the results of the confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses, the Turkish version of the HEEMA scale exhibited a four-factor structure consistent with the original form. The Cronbach's alpha values for the four sub-dimensions were as follows: .71 for Eudaimonic Motivation (EM), .81 for Hedonic Pleasure Motivation (H-PM), .57 for Hedonic Comfort Motivation (H-CM), and .86 for Extrinsic Motivation (EM). A positive relationship was observed between EM and H-PM with well-being, life satisfaction, and happiness scores. Furthermore, H-PM, H-CM, and EDM were positively correlated with anxiety and stress scores, while H-CM and EDM were also positively correlated with depression scores. In conclusion, the findings of the study demonstrate that the Turkish version of the HEEMA scale is a valid and reliable measurement tool for assessing individuals' hedonic, eudaimonic, and extrinsic motivations for activities.

Keywords

• behavior
• hedonic motivation
• eudomonic motivation
• extrinsic motivation
• psychometric property

Ethical Statement

I hereby declare that the data, information, and documents presented in this article have been obtained in accordance with academic and ethical principles. All information, documents, evaluations, and results have been presented in accordance with scientific ethical and moral principles. All works utilized in this article have been cited with appropriate attribution. No changes have been made to the data used and the results obtained. The work presented in this article is original. I hereby declare that I accept all rights that may be lost to me in the event of any failure to do so.

Thanks

I would like to thank Beyzanur Demirkaya, Elif Bilge Aytaç, Yasemin Özer and Buğra Orhan for their support during the data collection phase of the study.

References

1. Argyle, M., Hills, P., (2002). The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire: a compact scalefor the measurement of psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences 33, 1073–1082. Asano, R., Igarashi, T., & Tsukamoto, S. (2014). Hedonic and eudaimonic motives for activities (HEMA) in Japan: The pursuit of well-being. Japanese Journal of, Psychology, 85, 69–79.
2. Ateş, Ö. T. (2021). Motivasyon ile yaşam doyumu arasındaki ilişkide problem çözme becerilerinin aracı rolü. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 41(3), 1465-1487., GUJGEF41(3): 1465-1487.
3. Braaten, A., Huta, V., Tyrany, L., & Thompson, A. (2019). Hedonic and eudaimonic motives toward university studies: How they relate to each other and to well-being derived from school. Journal of Positive Psychology and Wellbeing, 3(2), 179-196.
4. Bujacz, A., Dunne, S., Fink, D., Gatej, A. R., Karlsson, E., Ruberti, V., et al. (2014b). Does creativity make you happy? The influence of creative activity on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Journal of European Psychology Students, 5 , 19–23. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.5334/jeps.by.
5. Bujacz, A., Dunne, S., Fink, D., Gatej, A. R., Karlsson, E., Ruberti, V., & Wronska, M. K. (2016). Why do we enjoy creative tasks? Results from a multigroup randomized controlled study. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19, 188-197.
6. Bujacz, A., Vittersø, J., Huta, V., & Kaczmarek, L. D. (2014a). Measuring eudaimonia and hedonia as motives for activities: Cross-national investigation through traditional and Bayesian Structural Equation Modeling. Frontiers in Psychology, Special Issue: Frontiers in Quantitive Psychology and Measurement, 5, 984.
7. Çötok, T. (2011). Aristotales Ahlakının Kurucu Erdemi Olarak Phronesis. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Sakarya Üniversitesi, Sakarya.
8. Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G. ve Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), 325-346.

9. Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Prieto-Kim, C., Choi, D. W., Oishi, S. ve Diener, R. B. (2010). New well- being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143-156. doi:10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y
10. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J. ve Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
11. Doğan, T. ve Akıncı-Çötok, N. (2011). Oxford Mutluluk Ölçeği Kısa Formunun Türkçe uyarlaması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 4(36), 165-172. 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. Behav Res Methods, 39(2):175-91. https ://doi: 10.3758/bf03193146.
12. Giuntoli, L., Condini, F., Ceccarini, F., Huta, V., & Vidotto, G. (2021). The different roles of hedonic and eudaimonic motives for activities in predicting functioning and well-being experiences. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22, 1657-1671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-020-00290-0
13. Hayley, A., Zinkiewicz, L., & Hardiman, K. (2015). Values, attitudes, and frequency of meat consumption. Predicting meat-reduced diet in Australians. Appetite, 84, 98–106. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.10.002.
14. Heckhausen, J. (1997). Developmental regulation across adulthood: Primary and secondary control of age-related challenges. Developmental Psychology, 33(1), 176–187. https ://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.1.176.
15. Henry, J. D. ve Crawford, J. R. (2005). The short‐form version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS‐21): Construct validity and normative data in a large non‐clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(2), 227-239. doi:10.1348/014466505X29657
16. Hu, L. ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
17. Huta, V., (2016). Eudaimonic and Hedonic Orientations: Theoretical Considerations and Research Findings. Springer International Publishing Switzerland J. Vittersø (ed.), Handbook of Eudaimonic Well-Being, International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life, 215-231. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42445-3_15
18. Huta, A., & Bouchard, M. (2017). French version of the Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives for Activities Revised and Expanded scale. Unpublished raw data.
19. 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, 735–762.
20. 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/s1090 2-013-9485-0.
21. Kalafatoğlu, M.R., Çelik, S.B., (2020). Genel İyi Oluş Ölçeği Kısa Formu’nun Türkçe’ye Uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması, Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 15(25), 3635-3653.
22. Kaplan, A., Garner, J. K., & Brock, B. (2019). Identity and motivation in a changing world: A complex dynamic systems perspective. In Motivation in education at a time of global change (Vol. 20, pp. 101-127). Emerald Publishing Limited.
23. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116
24. Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American dream: Correlates of fnancial success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 410–422. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.410.
25. Kasser,T., Ryan, R.,M., (1996). Further examining the American dream: differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 22:280–87, https ://doi. -org/10.1177/01461 67296 22300 6.
26. Kasser, T., & Ryan Ri, M. (2001). Be careful what you wish for: Optimal functioning and the relative attainment of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. In P. Schmuck & K. Sheldon (Eds.), Life goals and well being: Towards a positive psychology of human striving (pp. 116–131). Cambridge: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
27. Keldal, G., (2015). Warwick-Edinburgh Mental İyi Oluş Ölçeği’nin Türkçe Formu: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması, The Journal of Happiness & Well-Being, 3(1), 103-115.
28. Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 1007–1022. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.1007
29. Keyes, C. L. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43, 207–222.
30. Koumantarou Malisiova, E., Mourikis, I., Darviri,, C., Michou, M., Provi, K., Vlachakis, D., Bacopoulou, F., Papageorgiou, C., Chrousos, G. P. (2021). Validation of the Greek Version of Hedonic, Eudaimonic, and Extrinsic Motives for Activities (HEEMA) Instrument. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 1337, 137-147.
31. Köker, S., Journal of Happiness Studies (2021)(1991). Normal ve sorunlu ergenlerin yaşam doyumu düzeyinin karşılaştırılması (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). A.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
32. LeFebvre., A., & Huta, V., (2021). Age and Gender Differences in Eudaimonic, Hedonic, and Extrinsic Motivations, Journal of Happiness Studies, 22, 2299–2321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-020-00319-4
33. Li, W., Zhang, L., Jia, N., & Kong, F. (2021). Validation of the Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives for Activities-Revised Scale in Chinese Adults. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(8), 10, Article 3959.
34. Lovibond, P. F. & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(3), 335-343. doi:10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-U
35. Martinez-Marti, M. L., & Ruch, W. (2017). The relationship between orientations to happiness and job satisfaction: One year later in a representative sample of employees in Switzerland. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(1), 1–15. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1090 2-016-9714-4.
36. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation, Psychological Review, 50, 370–396.
37. McClelland, D. C. (1961). Methods of Measuring Human Motivation. In J. W. Atkinson, The Achieving Society, 41-43.
38. Nurmi, J. (1992). Age differences in adult life goals, concerns, and their temporal extension: A life course approach to future-oriented motivation. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 15(4), 487– 508. https ://doi.org/10.1177/01650 25492 01500 404.
39. Robinson, O. C. (2013). Values and adult age: Findings from two cohorts of the European Social Survey. European Journal of Ageing, 10(1), 11–23. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1043 3-012-0247-3.
40. Ruch, W., Harzer, C., Proyer, R. T., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2010). Ways to happiness in German-speaking countries: The adaptation of the German version of the Orientations to Happiness questionnaire in paper-pencil and internet samples. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26(3), 227–234. https ://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a0000 30.
41. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definations and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
42. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68.
43. Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E. (2001). On Happiness and Human Potentials: A Review of Research on Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–66.
44. Sarmento, R. P., & Costa, V. (2019). Confirmatory factor analysis--a case study. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.05598.
45. Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (2001). Getting older, getting better? Personal strivings and psychological maturity across the life span. Developmental Psychology, 37(4), 491–501. https ://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.37.4.491.
46. Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Kasser, T. (2004). The independent efects of goal contents and motives on well-being: It’s both what you pursue and why you pursue it. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(4), 475–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203261883.
47. Schmuck, P., Kasser, T., Ryan, R.M. 2000., Intrinsic and Extrinsic Goals: Their Structure and Relationship To Well-being in German and the U.S. Collage Students, Social Indicators Research, 50:225–41
48. Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a diferent method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 519–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/002202210103200 5001.
49. Schwartz, S. H., & Rubel, T. (2005). Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 1010–1028. https ://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.1010.
50. Seligman, M.P., (2002). Positive Psychology, Positive Prevention, and Positive Therapy In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 3–9). Oxford University Press.
51. Subaşı, M., Huta, V., & Osin, E. N. (2025). Hedonic vs. Eudaimonic Ways of Living on the Path to Well-Being and Psychological Distress: Turkish Validation of HEMA-R. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal, 15(77), 376-392.
52. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics. Pearson.
53. Tağ, M.N., Çetinkaya, B., Öznel İyi Oluş Hali (2019). Başkasına Güven ve İş Motivasyonu Arasındaki İlişki: Beklenti Teorisi Çerçevesinde Çok Düzeyli Analiz, Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, Cilt 15, Sayı 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.2019355054
54. Telef, B., (2013). Psikolojik İyi Oluş Ölçeği: Türkçeye Uyarlama, Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(3), 374-384 .
55. Tennant, R., Hiller, L., Fishwick, R., Platt, S., Joseph, S., Weich, S., Parkinson, J., Secker, J., & Stewart-Brown, S. (2007). The Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): Development and UK validation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5(1), 50-63. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-5-63
56. Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic efects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 246–260. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.246.
57. Waterman, A. S., Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., Ravert, R. D., Williams, M. K., Bede Agocha, V., Brent Donnellan, M. (2010). The Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Well-Being: Psychometric properties, demographic comparisons, and evidence of validity. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 41-61. doi:10.1080/ 17439760903435208
58. Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The counseling psychologist, 34(6), 806-838.
59. Yılmaz, Ö., Boz, H. ve Arslan, A. (2017). Depresyon Anksiyete Stres Ölçeğinin (DASS 21) Türkçe kısa formunun geçerlilik-güvenilirlik çalışması. Finans Ekonomi ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2(2), 78-91.
60. Yıldırım, A., Bozdemir, M., (2020). Ödamonik İyi Olma Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye Uyarlanması: Bir Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Nesne, 8(17), 254-269. DOI: 10.7816/nesne-08-17-07