Running head: A PATH(MODEL) FOR SOLIDARITY

Master’s Thesis

Submitted on August 15, 2017

A Path(model) for Solidarity. Psychological Resources

for Sustainable Behavior Change

Author: Nina Sahdeva

Matriculation number: 83-726-756

E-mail: nina.sahdevandotoni@stud.unibas.ch

Supervisor and 1st examiner: Prof. Dr. Andrew Gloster

2nd examiner: Dr. Andrea Hans Meyer

University of Basel

Department of Psychology

Division of Clinical Psychology and Intervention Science

A PATH(MODEL) FOR SOLIDARITY 2

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... 6  

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 7  

Pleasure-accomplishment-meaning Theory of Subjective Well-being for the Promotion of

intangible Sources of Satisfaction .................................................................................................. 8  

Six Psychological Resources for a Sustainable Lifestyle .................................................... 11  

Interrelatedness of the six Psychological Resources ........................................................... 15  

Building a path-model with variations and alternatives ...................................................... 18  

Research Question and Hypothesis ...................................................................................... 20  

METHOD .................................................................................................................................... 21  

Data .............................................................................................................................................. 21  

Participants ................................................................................................................................... 21  

Measures ...................................................................................................................................... 21  

Solidarity .............................................................................................................................. 22  

Meaning of Life and Meaning of Life-Presence .................................................................. 23  

Mindfulness ......................................................................................................................... 23  

Hedonism ............................................................................................................................. 24  

Self-acceptance .................................................................................................................... 24  

Self-efficacy ......................................................................................................................... 25  

Equal Expression ................................................................................................................. 25  

Procedure ..................................................................................................................................... 26  

Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 27  

RESULTS .................................................................................................................................... 29  

DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 35  

LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 39  

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 41  

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 42  

APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................. 51  

Appendix A: Items used to measure Solidarity ........................................................................... 51  

A PATH(MODEL) FOR SOLIDARITY 3

Appendix B: Items used to measure meaning of life ................................................................... 51  

Appendix A: Items used to measure Solidarity ........................................................................... 52  

Appendix B: Items used to measure meaning of life ................................................................... 53  

Appendix C: Items used to measure meaning of life presence .................................................... 54  

Appendix D: Items used to measure mindfulness ....................................................................... 55  

Appendix E: Items used to measures hedonism/capacity for pleasure ........................................ 56  

Appendix F: Items used to measure self-efficacy ........................................................................ 57  

Appendix G: Items used to measures self-acceptance ................................................................. 58  

Appendix H: Estimates and residuals matrices, models 1 und 2 ................................................. 59  

Model 1: ............................................................................................................................... 59  

Model 2: ............................................................................................................................... 59  

Appendix I: Estimates and residual matrices, models 3 and 4 .................................................... 60  

Model 3: ............................................................................................................................... 60  

Model 4: ............................................................................................................................... 60  
A PATH(MODEL) FOR SOLIDARITY 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Andrew Gloster for encouraging me to do this work.

I am also grateful to Dr. Andrea Meier and to Dr. Markus Stöcklin for putting me back on

track in statistics through their pearls of wisdom. Without the careful study direction of

assistant and PhD Candidate Marcia Rinner and without my colleagues in the Master's

project who recruited and tested subjects and cleared the data, there would not have been

such a clean set of data. But above all I thank them for their collegiality. Special thanks go

to Prof. Dr. Marcel Hunecke, who gave me the opportunity to reproduce his models and

gave me the latest update on his theory, as well as to my fellow student Larissa Landolt,

with whom I could regularly exchange ideas.

A PATH(MODEL) FOR SOLIDARITY 5

DECLARATION OF SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY

I hereby declare that I have read and fully adhered to the Code for Good Practice in Research

of the University of Basel.

Basel, 15.08.2017

Location, Date Signature

A PATH(MODEL) FOR SOLIDARITY 6

ABSTRACT

Background: Solidarity is seen as essential resource to promote lifestyles consistent with

the objectives of sustainable development. The "pleasure-accomplishment-meaning

theory of subjective well-being for the promotion of intangible sources of satisfaction"

(PAM, Hunecke, 2013b) outlines six psychological resources, amongst them solidarity,

that increase the likeliness of sustainable behavior change. In this study, the theory is

synthesized into path models that trace solidarity back on the other five resources and

are weighed against each other.

Methods: Data was collected from a sample of 182 healthy participants living around

Basel/Switzerland. Only baseline data was used.

Results: SEM Path model analysis does not support the hypothesis of mindfulness being

the key transformational resource; rather pleasure-capable and self-accepting people

convinced of their self-efficacy should engage either in mindfulness or in construction

of meaning to be able to leave old dysfunctional habits behind and engage in actions of

solidarity and possibly more sustainable lifestyles. Self-acceptance seems to be a key

resource to mental health that can, to a certain degree, compensate for a poorly

developed self-efficiency and/or capacity for pleasure.

Conclusions: Due to limitations especially concerning the measures, the results are to be

taken on an indicative note. The research on psychological resources for sustainability is

still in its beginnings. The PAM model, rooted in positive psychology, resource oriented

counseling and environment psychology bears similarities to the ACT hexagon for

psychological flexibility and therefore would certainly benefit from the large basis of

empirical studies done in behavior science on psychological flexibility.

Keywords: Solidarity, sustainable lifestyles, self-efficacy, hedonism, self-

acceptance, meaning of life, mindfulness

 7

INTRODUCTION

"A spirit of strengthened global solidarity, (…) with the participation of all

countries, all stakeholders and all people": That's what the delegates of the largest

international sustainability summit of the United Nations want to build on "to achieve

the envisaged world of prosperity for all while protecting the natural resources of the

planet and maintaining peace", as set out in the "Agenda 2030" with its 17 sustainable

development goals and 169 targets they approved in September 2015 (United Nations

General Assembly, 2015, p. 2). In fact, already the authors of "The Limits of Growth"

(Meadows, Meadows, Randers & Behrens III, 1972), after calculating many scenarios

with factors like population growth, food production, natural depletion and pollution,

pointed out that a change in behavior is unavoidable for sustainable development, that

people need to base their well-being more on intangible goods such as friendship,

health, or education. For a long time research on sustainable behavior change focused

on two motives: material incentives and disincentives, or altruistic reasons (Osbaldiston,

& Schott, 2011). But De Young (2000) proposed that, apart from those, another

important reason for people to engage in sustainable behavior is that it makes them

happy.

In 2011, the German Foundation "Denkwerk Zukunft" commissioned Marcel

Hunecke, Professor of General Psychology, Organizational and Environmental

Psychology at the University of Applied Sciences Dortmund, to identify the

psychological factors that influence the orientation towards intangible sources of

satisfaction and sustainable lifestyles. Two years later, Hunecke published the

"pleasure-accomplishment-meaning theory of subjective well-being for the promotion

of intangible sources of satisfaction" (Hunecke, 2013b), integrating findings from social

 8

ecological research, environmental psychology, positive psychology, and resource-

oriented counseling as a complement to the existing intervention methods and state

framework conditions for the promotion of sustainable lifestyles (Volkmer, 2013). Since

then, Hunecke has been further developing this theory and has recently published an

update (Hunecke, 2018).

In this paper, a path model based on the factors identified and the model

proposed in the "pleasure-accomplishment-meaning theory of subjective well-being"

(Hunecke, 2013a) is developed, that traces the occurrence of solidarity in a nonclinical

sample back to the interconnectedness of specific psychological resources. The model is

run with data drawn from the ongoing study "You and Me" of the University of Basel,

department of clinical psychology and neurology. It is compared to models with varied

paths and connections.

In the first chapter, the pleasure-accomplishment-meaning theory of subjective

well-being (Hunecke, 2013a) is outlined and put into the context of empirical research.

The path model that is closest to the model of Hunecke ( 2013a) is presented, as well as

three modified models and one alternative model.

Pleasure-accomplishment-meaning Theory of Subjective Well-being for the Promotion of

intangible Sources of Satisfaction
The pleasure-accomplishment-meaning theory of subjective well-being for the

promotion of intangible sources of satisfaction, henceforth called PAM, is based on the

assumption that any intervention intended to promote sustainable life change will only

be effective in the long run if people are happy with it: "If those living now do not

believe that their future lives in a sustainable society will be good or pleasant compared

with alternative life models, then we cannot expect them to undertake long-term

changes in behaviour geared towards a post-material and sustainable way of life."

 9

(Hunecke, 2013b, p. 12). This assumption reflects the trend in international

development discussion to link the overall goal of sustainable development to the goal

of happy societies (Corral, Mireles, Tapia, & Fraijo, 2011). But on an individual level,

the findings and theories on the relatedness of sustainable behavior and happiness are

contradictory: While Lindenberg and Steg (2007) consider hedonic goals to be

incompatible with a sustainable life-style, which according to them implies personal

sacrifice, several studies have found that equitable or altruistic individuals tend to show

higher levels of subjective well-being (Amato, Booth Johnson, & Rogers, 2007), that

consuming less and living a frugal lifestyle predicts satisfaction and psychological well-

being (Brown & Kasser, 2005) as well as intrinsic motivation, that allows to keep up the

sustainable lifestyle (De Young, 1996).

Subjective well-being and psychological well-being focus on different aspects of

a happy and fulfilling life. Subjective well-being (SWB) is an individual's cognitive and

affective evaluation of his or her life. According to Diener, Lucas, and Oishi, this

includes experiencing pleasant emotions, low levels of negative moods, and high life

satisfaction (Diener, Lucas, & Oishi, 2002). Life satisfaction is defined as a judgmental

process, in which individuals assess the quality of their lives on the basis of their own

unique criteria (Pavot & Diener, 1993). "The positive experiences embodied in high

subjective well-being are a core concept of positive psychology because they make life

rewarding" (Diener, Lucas & Oishi, 2002, S. 63). Psychological well-being (PWB), on

the other hand, takes different factors into account, like purpose in life, autonomy,

personal growth, environmental mastery, positive relationship, and self-acceptance

(Ryff, 2013).

According to positive psychology, SWB and PWB focus on two of three

different pathways to happiness. The three paths are 1) the life of pleasure, 2) the life of

engagement and 3) the life of meaning (Ruch, Harzer, Proyer, Park, & Peterson, 2010).
 10

The first route, hedonism, is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. The second route,

the life of engagement and achievement, is about dedicating oneself completely to

intrinsically motivated activities, which leads to a flow experience and ultimately to

satisfaction and happiness (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). The third route, the life of

meaning, follows the concept of "eudaimonia", of being true to one's inner self/daemon.

According to Seligman (2011), people feel satisfied when identifying, cultivating and

living in accordance to their virtues to achieve a higher purpose.

Table 1

Strategies and their psychological resources, how they work and resulting positive emotions

Strategy/Resources Psychological function and positive emotion

Hedonism/ Capacity Intensity rather than multiplicity of experience. Promotion of non-material

for pleasure sources of pleasure. Emotion of sensual pleasure

Achievement/Self- Greater independence from social processes of comparison increases life

acceptance and self- satisfaction, strengthening capacity for action promotes pride and flow

efficacy

Meaning/mindful- Orientation towards goals beyond the individual promotes serenity and

ness, construction of security, motivation to collective action fosters the sense of belonging and

meaning, solidarity trust.

Hunecke (2013a) identifies six psychological resources that should increase the

probability for an orientation towards intangible means of satisfaction and a sustainable

lifestyle, while making people happy: Capacity for pleasure (hedonism), self-efficacy
 11

and self-acceptance (achievement), construction of meaning and solidarity (meaning)

plus mindfulness, a resource that he incorporates on the basis of his experience with

resource-oriented consulting and the evidence of it's multiple benefits.

Table 1 gives an overview of the resources and their functions. Each of them

will be explained in the next sections.

Six Psychological Resources for a Sustainable Lifestyle

Hedonism, or what Hunecke (2013b) calls "capacity for pleasure", has two basic

sources: physical-sensual pleasures and aesthetic-intellectual pleasures. The first is

defined as physical sensations that can be felt throughout the body or in parts of the

body and are perceived and evaluated in a positive way. They are usually accompanied

by a conscious relationship to one's own body, experienced as lively and pleasurable,

and are perceived as a state of comfort (Frank, 2007). Frank has developed a self-

regulation program to promote physical well-being. The first of nine steps to increase

the capacity for pleasure is to raise the awareness for such pleasures and the feelings

and sensations that go with them (Frank, 2017). This holds also with the strategy of

savoring in positive psychology. Savoring is defined as a "process in which people

engage to, attend to, appreciate, and enhance the positive experiences in their lives"

(Bryant & Veroff, 2006, p. 2). Especially the aspect of future-oriented anticipation is a

well-known positive factor of subjective well-being, which goes beyond immediate

experience and is bound to knowledge about sensual pleasures. Ultimately, the

memories and knowledge of one's own positive emotional experiences must be

expanded and deepened. The daily documentation of positive experiences and

emotional states in a dairy has shown to increase subjective well-being (Jose, Lim, &

Bryant, 2012).

Self-acceptance is understood to be an unconditional acceptance of oneself with

 12

all the positive and negative qualities (Hunecke, 2013). Self-compassion is an important

element of self-acceptance and has been associated with qualities from compassion for

humanity, empathetic concern, and altruism (Neff & Pommier, 2013) to the life of

meaning, as well as with a stricter evaluation of own moral transgressions (Wang, Chen,

Poon, Teng & Jin, 2017). According to Berger (1952), a self-accepting person's

behavior is guided by his or her internal qualities and standards, independent from any

outside pressure, praise or criticism. This means, such a person is intrinsically

motivated, or more autonomous in his or her motivations (Deci & Ryan, 2008) and

therefore more prone to base the own well-being on immaterial satisfaction (Kasser,

2009). Self-accepting individuals consider their worth equal to the worth of other people

and expect to be accepted by others (Berger, 1952), and have been found to be more

open to accept others and take their perspective (Durm & Glaze, 2001; Styles & Atkins,

2018).

Self-efficacy is defined as "people's beliefs about their capabilities to produce

designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their

lives. Self-efficacy beliefs determine how people feel, think, motivate themselves and

behave." (Bandura, 1994, p. 2). Self-efficacy is one of the strongest predictors of

performance and achievement for any type of activity (Flinders et al., 2007). High self-

efficacy promotes intrinsic interest and the deep connection with activities, as well as

resilience against failure and setbacks (Bandura, 1994). Self-efficacy can be

strengthened through mastery experiences, vicarious experiences provided by social

models, persuasion, and cognitive restructuring (Bandura, 1994). High self-efficacy can

lead to a beneficial overestimation of the personal abilities; social reformers, according

to Bandura (1994) mostly overestimate their ability to mobilize the collective effort

needed to bring social change, but achieve important gains and can change realities.

Innovators need to be able to deal with the negative reactions of people who prefer
 13

leaving things the way they are.

Mindfulness is defined as "awareness that emerges through paying attention on

purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally to the unfolding of experience

moment by moment" (Kabat-Zinn, 2003, p. 145). Mindfulness is at the same time a

process - the practice of mindful meditation - and its result - the mindful awareness

(Keng, Smoski & Robins, 2011). Mindful awareness contrasts the usual way of how we

process experience through cognitive appraisals, evaluations, memories, beliefs, and

other forms of cognitive manipulation (Shapiro, Brown, Thoresen, & Plante, 2010). It is

an inherent human capacity with trait differences between individuals (Shapiro et al.,

2010). But it can be trained through various exercises, such as breathing and sitting

meditations, or specially designed psychotherapeutic interventions like the Mindfulness-

Based Stress Reduction (MBSR; Kabat-Zinn, 2003) or the Eight-Point Program of

Passage Meditation (EPP, Easwaran, 1991). The practice of mindfulness requires a high

degree of discipline and endurance and is not aimed at increasing well-being in the

hedonistic sense (Hunecke, 2013a). Shapiro et al. (2010) have noticed a change in the

motivation of meditation practitioners, who first were mainly interested in aspects of

self-regulation and introspection, but later started to search for meaning and purpose.

Trait mindfulness has multifold beneficial effects on mental and physical health. Among

others, it is associated with higher levels of life satisfaction, self-esteem, empathy, sense

of autonomy and pleasant affect, with enhanced performance on tasks that assess

sustained attention and persistence, and with a better ability to let go of thoughts about

the self (Keng et al., 2011). A more recent meta-analysis found positive, albeit limited,

effects of meditation in making individuals feel or act in a substantially more socially

connected, or less aggressive and prejudiced way (Kreplin, Farias & Brazil, 2018).

Moreover, mindfulness has been shown to be an important predictor of counseling self-

efficacy (Greason & Cashwell, 2009), as well as of model learning self-efficacy and
 14

personal effectiveness (Flinders, Oman & Flinders, 2007).

Meaning of life: Meaning of life is defined as extent to which people

comprehend and see significance in their lives, as well as the degree to how much they

perceive themselves to have a purpose or overarching aim in life (Damásio & Koller,

2015). The search for meaning is a primary force in one's life, according to Auschwitz

survivor and founder of existential psychology and logopedics, Viktor Frankl (1959).

The reflection on values and goals is highly personal and the meaning derived of this

reflection must be unique and specific to achieve significance and satisfy an individual's

will to meaning (Frankl, 1962). The search for meaning is an ongoing individual

process of reevaluating and reconsidering life experiences, drawing on traditions,

religions, and other sources (Hunecke, 2013a). Adolescence is the time period when

identity development means building a system of beliefs that reflect compelling

purposes (Erikson, 1994; Loevinger, 1987). Failing to find purpose in life can lead to

self-absorption, depression, addiction, deviant and destructive behavior, a lack of

productivity and an inability for stable relationships, whereas succeeding in finding

purpose and meaning entails positive effects like prosocial behavior, moral

commitment, achievement, and high self-esteem (Damon, Menon & Cotton Bronk,

2003).

Solidarity is a common term in sociology, politics, religion, or social science, but

not in clinical psychology. It is closely related to the psychological concept of prosocial

behavior – behavior aimed to help others (Gerrig & Zimbardo, 2008), but goes beyond

it, in that it emphasizes the sense of social responsibility and the belief that one can

achieve something in society. Hunecke (2013a) borrowed the concept from social

science, and, following Bierhoff and Fetchenhauer (2001), defines solidarity as an

emotionally tinted pattern of action motivated by altruism and based on the idea of

social justice to which the persons involved feel obliged. Solidarity describes a process
 15

(of acting in solidarity) and an outcome (being socially responsible). This definition of

solidarity embraces three of the four motivations for prosocial behavior identified by

Batson (1994): Wanting to help others without regarding the own interest (altruism),

helping a group one feels close to (collectivism) and binding moral principles; but not

the fourth one: Hoping for reciprocity (self-interest), (Batson, 1994). Social interest - a

cooperative approach toward life and a striving for ideal community – has many

beneficial effects not only on the receiver of help, but also on the general well-being,

the mental and physical health of the helper (Schwartz, Meisenhelder, Ma & Reed,

2003). People who often help others in a selfless way are prone to sympathy, higher-

level moral reasoning and perspective taking; they assume social responsibility and

show fewer aggressive behaviors (Eisenberg, Shepard, Fabes, Murphy & Guthrie,

1998). They most probably have grown up receiving social support from multiple

sources like family, school, neighborhood etc. (Wilson et al, 2009). Altruism is seen as

a fundamental component of the motivation for environmental protection and

sustainable behavior (Wesley Schultz, 2001).

Interrelatedness of the six Psychological Resources

Seligman assumes that the routes to well-being are distinct and can but need not

be followed simultaneously (Seligman, 2011). But Kashdan and Rottenberg (2010)

criticize the various theories of positive psychology as being too static and taking too

little account of the various contexts of life and situations that require different

behavioral responses. The aim needn't always be pleasure - anger, for instance, can be a

useful force in pursuing the goal of fighting injustice. Kashdan and Rottenberg (2010)

think increasing psychological flexibility is more fruitful to achieve psychological

health than to strive for positive emotions, strengths or positive traits. Psychological

flexibility is the ability to recognize and adapt to different situation; to expand the
 16

repertoire of behaviors and thoughts and the ability to choose and apply the most useful

behavior in a given circumstance; to balance different areas of life; and to act with

openness and in coherence with the own values. Hunecke's (2013a) model is situated

somewhere in between positive psychology and the more dynamic concept of

psychological flexibility. While he envisions the six psychological resources as nodes in

a dynamic network, where one resources can activate the others, his behavioral aim is a

more sustainable lifestyle and for this he considers all threes pathways to happiness

important. According to him, any of the strategies, if it stands alone, will not be enough

to have people take up sustainable behavior. Those who only emulate their pleasure and

enjoyment might be able to reduce their consumption thanks to the promotion of the

enjoyment experience, living by the motto "less but better". But hedonism, in positive

psychology, is understood as something very self- and present-related and in itself less

sensitive to the long-term social or ecological necessity of limitations. The achievement

strategy, if it stands alone, can cement the status quo if the need of sustainable

development is overlooked over the working down of a list of short-term goals,

especially if a person has materialistic values. And the life of meaning strategy in itself

could well remain a construct of abstract values not followed through. For supra-

individual values to translate into concrete actions, the experience of sensually

perceptible pleasures in everyday life is needed, as well as a successful implementation

of small sustainability subgoals. All in all, the fulfilled life of the PAM theory designed

here is based on all three pillars, which support each other and increase the resilience

against disturbances of the SWB. Hunecke subdivides the six resources into two groups

that should be present in a balanced way: the foundational resources, which are

hedonism, self-acceptance and self-efficacy, stand for a strong personality, which he

believes with reference to humanistic psychology, will live up to his or her needs and

aims, but will not necessarily limit his or her consumption for the good of a sustainable
 17

society; and the directional resources, which are mindfulness, construction of meaning

and solidarity. They again do not guarantee a value orientation towards non-material

sources of satisfaction: The lifelong search and construction of meaning has no given

value content, and solidarity can be restricted to the very immediate social sphere. But

they increase the likelihood of an orientation towards a more sustainable behavior,

thanks to the transformational power of mindfulness, which he sees as the bottleneck

between the foundational and the directional resources. Because in a first step

mindfulness focuses on one's own sensations and needs, in a second step the view

widens to the needs of other people and living beings and finally to humanity and life as

a whole. This perspective is the prerequisite for orientation towards supra-individual

goals and values. (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Interrelationship between the six psychological resources for the promotion of

subjective well-being (Hunecke, 2013b, p. 17).

 18

Building a path-model with variations and alternatives

There is a basic difference between Hunecke's (2013a) model and the path model

intended here: While his model is a dynamic network that evolves over time, the model

to be developed here is based on a snapshot, on baseline data, and designed to clarify

the question of how the distribution of prosociality in the sample can be traced back to

the relationship between the various resources. The model of Hunecke (2013) has not

been empirically tested until now. This paper searches for first indications on the

validity of the theory of Hunecke (2013a), using a sample of a nonclinical population in

Switzerland to test the model with structural equation modeling.

The theoretical model (model 1, Figure 2) shows meaning of life having a direct

connection to solidarity. Mindfulness also has direct connection to solidarity. Hunecke's

model does not show any direct effects of hedonism, self-efficacy and self-acceptance

on solidarity; but they do have an effect on meaning of life and on solidarity if

combined with mindfulness. Therefore a path model will have to work with interactions

of the foundational resources with mindfulness. Hunecke's model also shows a direct

connection from solidarity to self-acceptance, implying that prosocial actions promote

the sense of belonging and therefore self-acceptance. This is not of interest for the

explanation of solidarity; but in view of the aforementioned theories of self-acceptance,

an effect in the opposite direction can be assumed: Self-acceptance can help explain the

occurrence of solidarity if the other foundational resources are less present. Therefore a

new variable (called EqEx) is introduced expressing to what extent the three

foundational resources are equally expressed.

 19

Figure 2. Model 1 traces solidarity back on meaning of Life (MoL), Mindfulness (Mind), the

interaction of self-acceptance with the Equal Expression (sa*EqEx), and the interactions of each

hedonism, self-efficacy and self-acceptance, with mindfulness (h*mind, se*mind, sa*mind).

The second model will not differ from the first in paths, but in measures: the

variable meaning of life will be replaced by the variable MoL-presence – which

expresses to what extent a subject feels the presence of meaning and is not searching for

meaning. Following Linely and Joseph (2011), the search of meaning could signify that

a participant is living through a serious life event, which could be accompanied by

stress. Serious life events could have a negative impact on solidarity (Larson & Moses,

2014).

Hunecke's model also suggests a connection between hedonism and self-

acceptance, and between self-efficacy and self-acceptance. This will be taken into

account in the third model.

Model 4 proposes an alternative: One could argue that the first reflexive process
 20

leading from hedonism, self-efficacy and self-acceptance towards solidarity is the

conscious reassessment of one's own situation and a reorientation of the meaning and

purpose of one's own life, and that only in a second step this opens the way to

contemplative contemplation and mindfulness, which in turn can open the perspective

on one's fellow and environment. Therefore meaning of life and mindfulness will be

switched: hedonism, self-efficacy and self-acceptance, if combined with meaning of

life, lead to awareness, which in turn connects to solidarity. Meaning of life also

connects directly to solidarity, as well as self-acceptance in combination with baseV.

Research Question and Hypothesis

By tracing back solidarity on the five other psychological resources relevant to

promote sustainable behavior, I would like to find out:

1. Whether indeed mindfulness is the key resource transforming a person from

being psychologically healthy to being prone to sustainable behavior, or if there could

be alternative explanations, specifically that the construction of meaning can equally

well initiate the reflexive processes (model 1 versus model 4);

2. Whether there are indications that self-acceptance can partly compensate for

the lack of hedonism and/or self-efficacy;

3. If rather experience of meaning or both search of meaning and experience of

meaning are factors to explain the occurrence of solidarity (model 1 versus model 2);

4. Whether solidarity can be explained even better if the interrelationship of self-

acceptance with hedonism and self-efficacy is modeled (model 1 versus model 3).

Based on the background of the PAM theory, my hypothesis is that model 1 fits

the data better than any of the other models.

 21

METHOD

Data
The data was drawn from the baseline survey of a larger quasi-experimental

longitudinal study conducted at the Division of Clinical Psychology and Intervention

Science at the University of Basel. The study examines other research questions, for

which healthy couples are surveyed on a set of variables, including measures of interest

for this paper. Participants are included if they are at least 18 years of age, have been in

a romantic relationship for at least six months, interact with their partner on a daily

basis, are not affected of red-green blindness and have adequate German language

skills. Participation is voluntary. All procedures were submitted to the Institutional

Review Board of the Faculty of Psychology at the University of Basel and approved by

it. In an upcoming study a more detailed description of the study design and procedure

will be presented.

Participants
Of the original sample (N= 192), one couple proved to be a false inclusion, and 4

couples dropped out before the first meeting. The remaining sample (N = 182) includes

88 males and 94 females, with a mean age of 32.81 years (SD = 13.53 years, range =

18–80 years).

Measures
The study the data was drawn from did measure meaning of life, but none of the

other psychological resources. Therefore a non-conventional procedure was applied to

get the measures needed: The items of the measures used in the study were assembled

into new measures in such a way that they can measure the relevant constructs in the

best possible way. Although I am aware that the way these measures have been put
 22

together is an unusual practice, the fact that the framework of a Master Thesis is less

subject to the standards and constraints of a paper intended for publication and leaves

more scope for exploratory research, was fully exploited here. However, a study with its

own sample large enough to calculate this path model, and with measurement of all the

psychological resources, would have gone far beyond the scope of a master's thesis.

Moreover, the PAM theory is still in the making, which might not yet justify the cost of

a full empirical study – recently an update of the model has been published (2018) – and

marks the start of a quite new branch of studies within the field of sustainability

psychology. Internal consistency was measured and is indicated with each measure.

Cronbach's Alpha ranged from satisfactory to very good. As the study "you & me"

examines couples, the intra-class correlation for each measure was calculated to check

the independence of the data. The correlations nonexistence or minimal, therefore

independence of the data can be assumed. A complete list of all items per construct is

provided in attachment 1.

Solidarity
Solidarity was measured with items 5, 6, 7, and 11 of the short form of the

Mental Health Continuum (MHC-SF, Keyes, 2005a), and the items on prosociality of

the Development Assets Profile (DAP-PS, Wilson, O'Brien, & Sesema, 2009). The

MHC-SF measures subjective well-being, psychological well-being and social well-

being. The items used measure social well-being. They ask about the frequency of

feeling to belong to a community, of feeling that society is basically good or on the way

to become a better world for all people, that people are basically good and the

relationships with other people are benevolent and trustful. The Development Asset

Profile (Wilson et al., 2009) was developed to measure the quality of life of youth by

measuring prosociality (DAP-PS) and its environmental and individual correlates. DAP-
 23

PS has 8 items asking on a scale of 1-4 about the frequency of thinking it's important to

help other people, of resolving conflicts without anyone getting hurt, of telling the truth

even when it is not easy, of helping to make one's community a better place, of trying to

help solve social problems, of developing respect for other people, of being sensitive to

the needs and feelings of others and of serving others in one's community. The sample's

Cronbach's alpha was a = .81. ICC = 0.017 with 95% confident interval = 0.005 - 0.97.

Meaning of Life and Meaning of Life-Presence

Meaning of Life was measured with the Meaning of Life Questionnaire (MLQ,

Steger, Frazier, Oishi & Kaler, 2006, translated by Gloster et al., n.d.), with item 14 of

the MHC-SF, asking about the frequency of the feeling that one's life has a direction or

there is a meaning in one's life. The MLQ measures both the search for and the

existence of meaning of life by the degree of agreement with ten statements, on a likert

scale of 1-7. Cronbach's alpha for the sample was a = .87. ICC = 0.02 with 95%

confident interval = -0.006 - 0.97.

For the measure Meaning of Life – Presence (MoL-Presence) the same items as

for the Meaning of Life measure were used, but with the items measuring search of

meaning reverse coded. Cronbach's alpha for the sample was a = .87. ICC = 0.02 with

95% confident interval = -0.004-0.97.

Mindfulness
Mindfulness was measured with the first 4 items of the PsyFlex. PsyFlex

measures Psychological Flexibility in all its six aspects – acceptance, defusion, present

moment, self as perspective, values and committed action (Hayes, Strohsahl & Wilson,

2012) – plus on self compassion and meaning of life on a 7 point likert scale (Gloster,

n.d.). The choice of the items was based on the definition of Krabat-Zinn that

emphasizes the nonjudgmental (accepting) observation of thoughts and feelings – thus

 24

defusing them - in the present moment. Self-as-perspective was included on the basis of

Hunecke's description of the gradually widening focus of mindfulness. Cronbach’s

alpha for the sample was a = .75. ICC = 0.08 with 95% confident interval = 0.007- 0.99.

Hedonism
Hedonism/Capacity for pleasure was the biggest challenge to measure with the

items at hand. There were no items that measured physical sensual or e aesthetic-

intellectual pleasure and the absence of stress. Therefore items were chosen that

measure the effects of such pleasures that are typical for a hedonic state (Hunecke,

2013a): The first three items of the mental health questionnaire (MHC-SF, Keyes,

2005a, translated and adapted by Gloster et al., n.d.) asks about the frequency of

happiness, satisfaction and interest in life on a scale of 1-6. and Items 1, 3 and 10,

reverse coded, of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS, Cohen, 1983, translated by Büssing,

2011), asking on a 5 point likert scale about stress with the unexpected, feeling of stress,

and problem load. PSS is a measure to assess the degree to which an individual

appraises situations as stressful. Cronbach’s alpha for the sample was a = .75. ICC =

0.03 with 95% confident interval = -0.003 - 0.98.

Self-acceptance
Self-acceptance has different facets. The facet of deciding according to own

standards on one's course of life, one's actions and behaviors, independent of any

outside pressure (Berger, 1952) was measured with items 5 of the PsyFlex "ich

bestimme, was für mich wichtig ist und entscheide, wofür ich meine Energie einsetze".

The facet of self-compassion equally important in the concept of self-acceptance

(Hunecke, 2013a) was measured with item 7 of the PsyFlex "Ich begegne mir selbst mit

Toleranz, Wohlwollen und Fürsorglichkeit" of the PsyFlex. For the aspect of fully

accepting the own personality was items 9, 12 and 13 of the MHC-SF were used, that
 25

ask on a scale of 1-6 about the frequency of liking most of the facets of one's own

personality; of experiences that one can grow on and become a better person, and of

having confidently formed and expressed own ideas or opinions – the latter takes up the

facet of the own standards again. Cronbach’s alpha for the sample was a = .71. ICC =

0.02 with 95% confident interval = -0.006 - 0.97.

Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy was measured with Items from the MHC-SF, the PSS and the

PsyFlex. Items 4 and 10 of the MHC-SF ask about the frequency of being able to make

an important contribution to society and of mastering well the demands of everyday life.

Examining the factor structure of the PSS, Hewitt, Flett, & Mosher (1992) found that

the negatively formulated PSS items measure the feeling of perceived helplessness

while the positively formulated items measure self-efficacy. Items 2 and 4 to 9 of the

PSS ask about the feeling over the past 4 weeks of not being able to influence important

things in life, of being confident in dealing with personal tasks and problems, of things

developing according to one's ideas, of not being able to handle all the upcoming tasks

and problems properly, of being able to cope with anger in one's life, of having

everything under control, of being annoyed about not being able to influence important

things. Negatively formulated items were recoded. Item 7 of PsyFlex asks to rate the

frequency of being actively committed to what one finds important, useful or

meaningful and thus takes up the self-efficiency-aspect of consistently pursuing ones

goals and ambitions (Bandura, 1994). Cronbach’s alpha for the sample was a = .77.

ICC = 0.035 with 95% confident interval = -0.002- 0.98.

Equal Expression
A variable named EqEx was introduced to express the standard deviation of the

values for hedonism, self-acceptance and self-efficacy of each individual, using the
 26

formula:

𝐸𝑞𝐸𝑥1

!
! 1
= ℎ𝑒𝑑𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑚 − 𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛!!"#$%&' + (𝑠𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 − 𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛!"##$%&"'#$ )! + 𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑐𝑦 − 𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛!"##$%&%' ∙
𝑛−1

For the variable to show the equality of expression, rather than the dispersion, the

direction of the vector was reversed with the formula

𝐸𝑞𝐸𝑥 = (𝐸𝑞𝐸𝑥! − 2 ∙ 𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛!"!#! ) ∙ (−1)

The use of this variable is based on the assumption that all three foundational

resources need to be developed to an equal degree to build the foundation for solidarity

(Herring, 2006, Turner & Reynolds, 2011).

Procedure
Participants were recruited through announcements in several lectures at the

University of Basel and within the senior lectures program, through announcements on

online platform of the University of Basel and a Facebook page, as well as through the

distribution of leaflets on places frequented by couples or parents. All participants came

to the Institute of Clinical Psychology and Epidemiology at the University of Basel to

complete online versions of the measures as part of questionnaire batteries being run for

other surveys on Unipark, an online survey software. Participants were informed about

the purpose of the study and about their right to withdraw at any time from the study.

All participants provided informed consent. Couples completed the surveys

simultaneously, in the same room, on two computers separated by a screen, while the

test leader was present. The completion took around a half an hour. Participants

received a compensation of between CHF 55.— for attending two meetings of

approximately one hour each and completing the follow-up questionnaire and

CHF 120.— if they additionally completed a smartphone survey six times a day for one

week. Part of the remuneration (CHF 40.—) was awarded as vouchers, which can be
 27

redeemed in shops in downtown Basel. Students of the Faculty of Psychology could opt

for course credits instead of the monetary compensation.

Data Analysis
Statistical Data analysis was performed with the free software RStudio (RStudio

Team, 2016) and the packages yarr, dplyr, tidyverse, ggplot2, car, papaja, devtools,

psych, lavaan, ICC, ggraph, caret, irr, e1071, and lavaan. The dataset had no missing

data. Models were estimated with Maximum Likelihood Method.

Descriptive statistics of age, income, and educational achievement were

calculated as obtained from the questionnaires. To deal with the few outliers, the dataset

was winsorized, i.e. values above the ninety-fifth percentile were set to the ninety-fifth

percentile and values below the fifth percentile were set to the fifth percentile, following

the standard assumption that values beyond the 5%-confidence interval are

exaggerations of the truth (Gosh & Vogt, 2012).

As items of different scales were regrouped to replay the intended constructs

(see explanation at the beginning of the chapter), they needed to be transformed. All

items were recoded to a value range between 1 and 2, where 1 means no expression and

2 means the fullest expression of the variable. Transformation was performed with the

formula y=((x-1)/(N-1))+1, where x is the raw value, and N the highest value of the

untransformed scale. Since the sample consists of couples, intra-class correlation

coefficients (ICC) were calculated for all constructs to estimate the independence of the

sample data, with help of the package ICC (Wolak, 2017). Overall, the ICC estimates

showed a very bad test-retest-reliability, so dependencies were ignored in further

calculations (see Table 2).

Normality assumption was checked through visual examination of histograms,

boxplots, QQ-plots (see figure 3) for each of the variables included in the model. Tests
 28

of kurtosis and skewness are not considered appropriate, as with large samples, very

small standard errors can produce significant test results (Kline, 2016).

Figure 3. QQ-plots of the variables hedonism, self-acceptance, self-efficacy, mindfulness,

meaning of life and solidarity.

However, as shown in Table 2 of the next chapter, the values of kurtosis and

skewness of all the variables fall within the range of -2 and +2 generally seen as

acceptable for normality assumption (Field, Miles & Field, 2012).

 29

RESULTS

With possible results between 1 and 2, he lowest value anybody reached is 1.125

in self-efficacy, the highest values are 2, reached in hedonism, self-acceptance, self-

efficacy and Meaning of Life-presence. Meaning of Life has the biggest difference

between the highest and the lowest values is seen in Meaning of life (difference D =

0.825), the smallest range is in self-efficacy (D = 0.6) Mindfulness has the highest mean

(M=0.705) and the highest standard deviation (SD= 0.156). For an overview, see table 2.

Table 2

Descriptive statistics, including skewness and kurtosis, and ICC coefficient with confidence

interval

A correlation matrix and a matrix showing the significance of the Pearson's

correlations were created (integrated in table 3). It shows significant correlations of

solidarity with all other psychological resources. Mindfulness is uncorrelated with

meaning of life, but correlated with meaning of life-presence and with all the other

psychological resources. As expected, meaning of life is negatively correlated with

 30

meaning of life-presence, and it is also uncorrelated with hedonism, but it correlates

with the other psychological resources. Hedonism is strongly correlated to self-efficacy

and has medium correlation with mindfulness and self-acceptance. Self-acceptance is

also correlated to self-efficacy, and has a negative correlation with EqEx, the measure

for equal manifestation of the three foundational resources. Self-efficacy also has a

positive correlation with EqEx.

Table 3.

Correlation matrix with significance levels for the variables solidarity (soli), Meaning of life (mol),
meaning of life-presence (molP), mindfulness (mindf), hedonism (hedon), self-acceptance (sacc), self-
efficacy (seff) and equal expression of the foundational resources (EqEx)
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. soli

2. mol 0.32***

3. molP 0.25*** -0.22***

4. mindf 0.27*** 0.06 0.21***

5. hedon 0.38*** 0.13 0.45*** 0.45***

6. sacc 0.49*** 0.23*** 0.36*** 0.45*** 0.48***

7. seff 0.42*** 0.17* 0.40*** 0.48*** 0.73*** 0.54***

8. EqEx -0.07 -0.03 -0.06 0.04 -0.11 -0.38*** 0.33***

*𝑝 < 0.1; **  𝑝 < 0.05;  ***  𝑝 < 0.01

Model 1. Our baseline model (Figure 4) has 6 paths, five variances, and two

error variances. With seven variables, this model is over identified, which is a necessary

! !!!
and sufficient condition for recursive models such as this one. With !
− 13 = 15

degrees of freedom it explains only a part of the variance in solidarity.

 31

Fit indices for model 1 are good:

!!
χ! 2 =  1.325, p =   .516,       !" =  0.663,      CFI = 1.000, RMSEA =  . 000,

PCLOSE =   .650, SRMR = 0.028.

The χ2 test checks whether the covariance matrix reproduced using the estimated

model parameters, differs significantly from the population covariance matrix estimated

from the data. A non-significant result is desired. Root mean square error of

approximation (RMSEA) is a measure for the overall model fit that indicates how well a

structural equation model corresponds to the data and are based on the difference

between the sample covariance matrix and the covariance matrix reconstructed using

the estimated model parameters. The comparative fit index (CFI) is and index for the

extent to which the tested model is superior to an alternative model in reproducing the

observed covariance matrix. CFI performs well even with small samples and is

considered good, if >.97 (Stöcklin, 2016). Standardized Root Mean Square Residual

(SRMR) indicates the average of standardized residuals between the observed and the

hypothesized covariance matrices (Chen, 2007). An acceptable SRMR fit is smaller

than 0.1, a good fit should be smaller than 0.05 (Kline, 2016). Standardized residues are

≥ 0.001; models with values below 2 are considered good (Stöcklin, 2016).

Table 4.

Direct unstandardized and standardized effects of meaning of life (Mol), mindfulness, the
interaction of self-acceptance (saccept) and mindfulness (mindful) on solidarity (soli), and the
percentage of variance explained with model 1.
Direct effects Unstandardized Std.Err Standardized

Mol! soli .321*** .071 .308

Mindfulness!soli .236*** .065 .247

Saccept*mindf!soli .034 .590 .012

Explained variance 𝑅 ! ∙ 100 15,6 %

*𝑝 < 0.1; **  𝑝 < 0.05;  ***  𝑝 < 0.01

 32

Total explained Variance in model 1 is 15.6 percent, and the most important

factors are meaning of life and mindfulness; the interactions of acceptance with EqEx

and with mindfulness contribute little to the explained variance, but are important for

the fit of the model (Kline, 2016).

Model 2 has the same paths and therefore the same amount of degrees of

freedom. The model is equally over identified. The fit indices are acceptable, but

significantly worse than in model.   The measure mol-presence is less adequate to

explain variance in solidarity than the original measure meaning of life. Model 2

explains only 9.6% of variance in solidarity.

Model 3 includes the connection between hedonism and self-acceptance and

! !!!
between self-efficacy and self-acceptance. It has !
− 19 = 9 degrees of freedom

and therefore naturally explains more of the variance in solidarity (𝑅! ∙ 100 = 24,2%),

see Figure 4.

There are significant direct effects of meaning of life and solidarity and of self-

acceptance on solidarity, as well as a significant indirect effect of self-efficacy on self

acceptance and of hedonism on self acceptance, as hypothesized in this model. But the

fit indices of model 3 are bad, significantly worse than in model 1, and the modification

indices with high values of up to a 125 (in the correlation between self-acceptance and

the variable EqEx) point to a misspecification in the connections between self-

acceptance and other constructs. Only the regression coefficient of solidarity on

meaning of life is significant.

 33

Figure 4. Model 3, like model 1, traces solidarity back on meaning of Life (MoL), Mindfulness (Mind),

the interaction of self-acceptance with the Equal Expression (sa*EqEx), and the interactions of each

hedonism, self-efficacy and self-acceptance with mindfulness (h*mind, se*mind, sa*mind). Additionally

the connections between hedonism (hed..ism) and self-acceptance (se….nce) resp. self-efficacy

(sefficacy) and self-acceptance (se…nce) and a direct link between self-acceptance and solidarity were

included.

Model 4 works with the same paths as model 1 but switches meaning of life with

mindfulness (see Figure 6). The fit indices are excellent as in model 1. Chi square

difference test does not show any significant difference between the fit of the two

models. Model 4 also explains 15.6% of the variance in solidarity, with significant

direct effects from meaning of life and of mindfulness on solidarity (see Figure 5 and

Table 5).
 34

Figure 5. Model 4 links the interactions of each hedonism, self-efficacy and self-acceptance

with meaning of life to mindfulness, and mindfulness, meaning of life and the interaction of

self-acceptance with EqEx (sab) to solidarity (soli).

Table 5

Direct unstandardized and standardized effects of meaning of life (Mol), mindfulness, the
interaction of self-acceptance (saccept) and Equal Expression (EqEx) on solidarity (soli), and
the percentage of variance explained with model 4.
Direct effects Unstandardized Std.Err Standardized

Mindfulness! soli .236*** .065 .247

Mol!soli .321*** .071 .308

Saccept*EqEx!soli .035 .074 .032

Explained variance 𝑅 ! ∙ 100 15,6 %

*𝑝 < 0.1; **  𝑝 < 0.05;  ***  𝑝 < 0.01

 35

DISCUSSION

This study explored the interrelations and effects of five psychological resources

on solidarity, which is viewed as an essential resource to promote sustainable lifestyles.

The data was drawn from a study conducted with a non-clinical sample of 182

individuals. With a baseline questionnaire, mental Health, meaning of life, perceived

stress, prosociality Development assets, and psychological flexibility were measured

along with other variables. In a explorative way, the items of the measures were

reassembled to measure the six psychological resources hedonism/capacity of pleasure,

self-efficacy, self-acceptance, mindfulness, meaning of life and solidarity. Based on the

"Pleasure-accomplishment-meaning-theory" (Hunecke, 2013a), four path models were

derived that traced solidarity back on the other five resources. It was hypothesized that

the first model fit the data best.

Model 1 hat good fit indices and did not seem to contain any faulty

specifications. The effect on meaning of life of the interaction of each hedonism, self-

efficacy and self-acceptance with mindfulness, the direct effect of meaning of life on

solidarity and the effect on solidarity of the interaction of the newly created variable

Equal Expression - the inverted measure for the standard deviation of the individual

results on the three foundational resources – with self-acceptance explains the variance

in solidarity well. However, model 4 fits the data just as well. In this model,

mindfulness and meaning of life switch places: The indirect effect of the interaction of

each hedonism, self-efficacy and self-acceptance with meaning of life via mindfulness

on solidarity, together with a direct effect of mindfulness on solidarity and the effect of

the interaction of self-acceptance and Equal Expression on solidarity explain 15.6

Percent of the variance in solidarity – as much as model 1. The hypothesis therefore is

 36

rejected. However, the good fit of the two models seems to confirm the assumption that

the basic resources explain the variance in solidarity if they interact with the reflective

resources (mindfulness, or meaning of life). It also encourages the proposal that self-

acceptance helps to explain variance in solidarity if the other foundational resources

(hedonism and self-efficacy) are less developed.

The comparison of model 1 with model 2, that hat an unsatisfactory fit, clearly

demonstrates that meaning of life explains variance in solidarity only if it encompasses

both the search for and the experience of meaning. Experience of meaning alone does

not explain the occurrence of solidarity.

According to sustainability psychologist Di Fabio (2017) search for meaning is

part of the inner transformation necessary to change values and goals. It involves

reflection on a vertical axe, with ideas of "where I come from", the awareness of "where

I am" and of "where I will go", and on a horizontal axe extending the perspective from

an egocentric and self-centered one to an altruistic – solidarity oriented - one. This

extension of the perspective enables people to reconcile personal interests with those of

the community and the environment. The "meta-centric reflexivity" (Di Fabio 2017)

needs both, mindfulness as well as meaning for life, and ultimately leads to a prosocial

orientation. It bares similarities with the concepts of the "Self as Perspective" or "deictic

relational framing", "Present Moment", and values, pertaining to the Relational

framework Theory and the Acceptance and Commitment (ACT) Theory (Hayes et al.,

2012). These skills are activated and trained at the same time, as well as Acceptance -

that embraces but goes beyond Hunecke's concept of self-acceptance, Defusion, that

Hunecke (2013) or Kabat-Zinn (2003) would see as part of Mindfulness, and

Committed Action, which is an important part of the concept of solidarity.

But the distinction of the Mindfulness and Meaning for life is not random.

Meaning of life is a need (Frankl, 1959). Mindfulness is a personality trait on the one
 37

hand, but also a skill one must consciously choose and train: "Being mindful is the

antithesis of the state in which most people find themselves – immersed in their

memories, thoughts, or plans, swept away by their emotions, barely noticing what is

going on around them or inside them, and functioning on automatic pilot" (Huppert,

2017). Whereas for some people it might be easier to start their behavior change track

with thinking about their values and their purpose in life, for others it might be

necessary to step out of the automatic pilot mode first.

Therefore our findings support Hunecke's view on his model being a dynamic

network with different nodes from which it can be activated. Model 1 and 4, in this

view, simply describe two paths leading to the same goal.

Interestingly, in the latest modification on the model, Hunecke (2018) has

introduced a third level, called transformational resources, between the foundational

resources self-efficacy and self-acceptance, and the directional resources meaning of

life and solidarity (see Figure 6).

Figure 6. Left side: Interrelationship of the six psychological resources to foster subjective

well-being and sustainable lifestyles (Hunecke, 2018), right side: ACT model of psychological

flexibility displaying the six core processes and their interconnectedness (Fletcher & Hayes,

2005, p. 320).
 38

This model gets even closer to the ACT hexagon, with self-acceptance instead of

acceptance, self-efficacy instead of defusion, capacity for pleasure instead of contact

with the present moment, mindfulness instead of self as context, construction of

meaning instead of values and solidarity instead of committed action. This supports the

argument of Kashdan and Rottenberg (2010) that the main objective of interventions

should be to increase psychological flexibility, rather than to promote a specific state or

behavior. Much of the differences between the PAM and the ACT model lie in just

slightly different definitions of the constructs. This can be explained with the different

research fields from which the two models emerged.

 39

LIMITATIONS

This study has several limitations. The most serious one, as mentioned before,

are the measures. No validated measures were used to measure the six psychological

resources. The items of four of validated measures used in the study "you & me" were

reassembled to best measure the relevant factors. Even with the transformation of all

items to standardize them to a vector size ranging from 1 to 2, this procedure diminishes

the reliability and validity of the measures. While there were enough items to

satisfactorily measure five of the constructs, there was a lack on items to measure

capacity for pleasure as defined by Hunecke (2013a). It could well be possible that with

the corresponding items hedonism/capacity for pleasure could have been shown to play

a more important role, as proposed in the latest model (Hunecke 2018). Several suitable

measures could be applied in a further study, like the Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale

(SHAPS; Snaith, Hamilton, Morley, & Humayan, 1995), Fawcett-Clark Pleasure

Capacity Scale (FCPS; Fawcett, Clark, Scheftner, & Gibbons, 1983), or the Revised

Chapman Physical Anhedonia Scale (CPAS; Chapman, Chapman, & Raulin, 1976).

The assumption of normal distribution might have been too generous with the

variable of mindfulness; estimating mindfulness as an ordinal-scaled variable might

have yielded more reliable results.

Another limitation is the exclusive use of self-reported data. Self-reported data is

known to be susceptible to biases like selective memory, or exaggeration. A multi-

method design with for instance experimental elements, reports from others, or diaries

usually yields more valid results. Moreover, only baseline data were used. To find out

whether the five resources predict solidarity and sustainable lifestyles, the effects would

have to be studied over a longer period, for example in an observational or experimental

design.
 40

The research on psychological resources that help people to turn to and enjoy

more sustainable lifestyles is still at its beginnings, with lots of influences from different

study fields and a lack of empirical studies, which can limit the classification of the

findings.
 41

CONCLUSION

Solidarity is thought to be a most promising factor to set in motion the

transformation of culture and habits needed for a sustainable development. The

hypothesis that mindfulness is the primordial psychological resource that has the

tendency to make a mentally healthy person start thinking about himself of herself and

about the others, develop supra-individual goals and act prosocially could not be upheld.

Rather, the results after running the different models seem to indicate that basic

resources of mental health, like capacity for pleasure, self-efficiency, and self-

acceptance, when combined with any of the reflective processes, be it construction of

meaning or mindfulness, can explain the occurrence of solidarity, and that self-

acceptance can partially compensate for weak self-efficacy and a weakly developed

capacity for pleasure. The findings on the interrelations of hedonism/capacity for

pleasure, self-efficacy and self-acceptance were inconclusive, probably due to the

various limitations of the study.

Future studies in sustainability psychology should take into account the findings

of behavior science on psychological flexibility. Further studies with larger samples,

more precise measures and stricter statistical methods can refine and expand the model

of "Pleasure-Accomplishment-Meaning theory of subjective well-being" and better

empirically justify the theory.

 42

REFERENCES

Antonovsky, A. (1988). Unraveling the mystery of health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Publ.

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. Ramachaudran, Encyclopedia of human

behavior, 4 (pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press.

Batson, C. (1994). Looking Back at The Unresponsive Bystander: Camelot or the

Golden Age?. Contemporary Psychology: A Journal Of Reviews, 39(10), 941-

943. doi: 10.1037/034154

Baumeister, R., & Newman, L. (1994). How Stories Make Sense of Personal

Experiences: Motives that Shape Autobiographical Narratives. Personality And

Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(6), 676-690. doi: 10.1177/0146167294206006

Berger, E. (1952). The relation between expressed acceptance of self and expressed

acceptance of others. The Journal Of Abnormal And Social Psychology, 47(4),

778-782. doi: 10.1037/h0061311

Bierhoff, H. (2008). Solidarität. In A. Auhagen, Positive Psychologie (2nd ed., pp. 183-

202). Weinheim: Beltz.

Brown, H., & Vergragt, P. (2016). From consumerism to wellbeing: toward a cultural

transition?. Journal Of Cleaner Production, 132, 308-317. doi:

10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.107

Brundtland, G., Khalid, M., Agnelli, S., Al-Athel, S., Chidzero, B., & Fadika, L. et al.

(1987). Our Common Future. USA: Oxford University Press.

Bryant, F., & Veroff, J. (2006). Savoring. New York: Psychology Press.

Carlo, G. (2018). The development and correlates of prosocial moral behaviors. In M.

Killen & J. Smetana, Handbook of moral development (pp. 208-234). New York,
 43

London: Psychology Press.

Chapman, L. J., Chapman, J. P., & Raulin, M. L. (1976). Scales for physical and social

anhedonia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85, 374–382.

Cohen, S. (1994). Perceived Stress Scale. Retrieved from

http://www.mindgarden.com/documents/PerceivedStressScale.pdf

Corral-Verdugo, V., Mireles-Accosta, J., Tapia-Fonllem, C., & Fraijo-Singh, B. (2018).

Happiness as correlate of sustainable behavior: A study of pro-ecological, frugal,

equitable and altruistic actions that promote subjective Wellbeing. Human

Ecology Review, 18(2), 95-104.

Cummins, R. (2001). The subjective well-being of people caring for a family member

with a severe disability at home: a review. Journal Of Intellectual &

Developmental Disability, 26(1), 83-100. doi: 10.1080/13668250020032787

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Foward. Occupational Therapy In Health Care, 6(4), 15-

17. doi: 10.1300/j003v06n04_03

Damásio, B., & Koller, S. (2015). Meaning in Life Questionnaire: Adaptation process

and psychometric properties of the Brazilian version. Revista Latinoamericana

De Psicología, 47(3), 185-195. doi: 10.1016/j.rlp.2015.06.004

Damon, W., Menon, J., & Cotton Bronk, K. (2003). The Development of Purpose

During Adolescence. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 119-128. doi:

10.1207/s1532480xads0703_2

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human

motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie

Canadienne, 49(3), 182-185. doi: 10.1037/a0012801

De Young, R. (1993). Changing Behavior and Making it Stick. Environment And

Behavior, 25(3), 485-505. doi: 10.1177/0013916593253003

De Young, R. (2000). New Ways to Promote Proenvironmental Behavior: Expanding

 44

and Evaluating Motives for Environmentally Responsible Behavior. Journal Of

Social Issues, 56(3), 509-526. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00181

Diener, E., Lucas, R., & Oishi, S. (2002). Subjective well-being: the science of

happiness and life-satisfaction. In C. Snyder & S. Lopez, Handbook of Positive

Psychology (1st ed., pp. 63-73). New York: Oxford University Press.

Di Fabio, A. (2017). The Psychology of Sustainability and Sustainable Development for

Well-Being in Organizations. Frontiers In Psychology, 8. doi:

10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01534

Durm, M., & Glaze, P. (2001). Relation of Self-Acceptance and Acceptance of

others. Psychological Reports, 88(2), 410-410. doi: 10.2466/pr0.2001.88.2.410

Eisenberg, N., Shepard, S., Fabes, R., Murphy, B., & Guthrie, I. (1998). Shyness and

Children's Emotionality, Regulation, and Coping: Contemporaneous,

Longitudinal, and Across-Context Relations. Child Development, 69(3), 767-790.

doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06242.x

Eknath, E. (1991). God makes the rivers to flow. Tomales, Calif.: Nilgiri Press.

Erikson, E. (1994). Identity youth and crisis. NEW YORK: W.W. NORTON.

Fawcett, J., Clark, D. C., Scheftner, W. A., & Gibbons, R. D. (1983). Assessing

anhedonia in psychiatric patients: The Pleasure Scale. Archives of General

Psychiatry, 40, 79–84.

Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. London: Sage.

Flinders, T., Oman, D., & Flinders, C. (2007). The Eight-Point Program of Passage

Meditation: Health Effects of a Comprehensive Program. In T. Plante & C.

Thoresen, Spirit, science and health: How the spirituality fuels physical wellness.

Greenwood Publishing Group.

Frank, R. (2017). Therapieziel Wohlbefinden. Heidelberg: Springer.

Frankl, V. E. (1962). Man's search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy: A

 45

newly revised and enlarged edition of from death-camp to existentialisme.

Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Gerrig, R., & Zimbardo, P. (2008). Psychologie (18th ed.). München: Pearson Studium.

Gosh, D., & Vogt, A. (2012). Outliers: An Evaluation of Methodologies. Section On

Survey Research Methods – JSM 2012, 3455-3460.

Greason, P., & Cashwell, C. (2009). Mindfulness and Counseling Self-Efficacy: The

Mediating Role of Attention and Empathy. Counselor Education And

Supervision, 49(1), 2-19. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6978.2009.tb00083.x

Hayes, S., Strohsahl, K., & Wilson, K. (2012). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy(2nd

ed.). New York: Guilford Publications.

Hechler, S., & Kessler, T. (2018). On the difference between moral outrage and empathic

anger: Anger about wrongful deeds or harmful consequences. Journal Of Experimental

Social Psychology, 76, 270-282. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2018.03.005

Herringer, N. (2006). Empowerment in der Sozialen Arbeit (3rd ed.). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Hunecke, M. (2013). Psychologie der Nachhaltigkeit. München: Oekom.

Hunecke, M., & Cunningham, R. (2013). Psychological Resources for a Sustainable Lifestyle.

Bonn: Denkwerk Zukunft - Foundation for Cultural Renewal.

Huppert, F. (2017). Living life well: the role of mindfulness and compassion. Presentation,

Sydney.

Jose, P., Lim, B., & Bryant, F. (2012). Does savoring increase happiness? A daily diary

study. The Journal Of Positive Psychology, 7(3), 176-187. doi:

10.1080/17439760.2012.671345

Juárez-Nájera, M., Rivera-Martínez, J., & Hafkamp, W. (2010). An explorative socio-

psychological model for determining sustainable behavior: Pilot study in German and
 46

Mexican Universities. Journal Of Cleaner Production, 18(7), 686-694. doi:

10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.09.018

Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Context: Past, Present, and

Future. Clinical Psychology: Science And Practice, 10(2), 144-156. doi:

10.1093/clipsy/bpg016

Kasser, T. (2009). Psychological Need Satisfaction, Personal Well-Being, and Ecological

Sustainability. Ecopsychology, 1(4), 175-180. doi: 10.1089/eco.2009.0025

Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. (1993). A dark side of the American dream: Correlates of financial

success as a central life aspiration. Journal Of Personality And Social

Psychology, 65(2), 410-422. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.65.2.410

Keng, S., Smoski, M., & Robins, C. (2011). Effects of mindfulness on psychological health: A

review of empirical studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(6), 1041-1056. doi:

10.1016/j.cpr.2011.04.006

Keyes, C. (2005). Mental Illness and/or Mental Health? Investigating Axioms of the Complete

State Model of Health. Journal Of Consulting And Clinical Psychology, 73(3), 539-

548. doi: 10.1037/0022-006x.73.3.539

Kline, R. (2016). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York:

Guilford Press.

Kohlberg, L. (1971). Indoctrination versus relativity in value education. Zygon, 6(4), 285-310.

doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.1971.tb00727.x

Kolers, A. (2016). Social movements. Philosophy Compass, 11(10), 580-590. doi:

10.1111/phc3.12351

Kreplin, U., Farias, M., & Brazil, I. (2018). The limited prosocial effects of meditation: A

systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports, 8(1). doi: 10.1038/s41598-

 47

018-20299-z

Kurz, T. (2002). The Psychology of Environmentally Sustainable Behavior: Fitting Together

Pieces of the Puzzle. Analyses Of Social Issues And Public Policy, 2(1), 257-278. doi:

10.1111/j.1530-2415.2002.00041.x

Lambert, N., Stillman, T., Hicks, J., Kamble, S., Baumeister, R., & Fincham, F. (2013). To

Belong Is to Matter. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(11), 1418-1427.

doi: 10.1177/0146167213499186

Larson, A., & Moses, T. (2014). Examining the Link Between Stress Events and Prosocial

Behavior in Adolescents. Youth & Society, 49(6), 779-804. doi:

10.1177/0044118x14563049

Latane, B., & Darley, J. (1970). The unresponsive bystander. New York: Meredith.

Linley, P., & Joseph, S. (2011). Meaning in Life and Posttraumatic Growth. Journal Of Loss

And Trauma, 16(2), 150-159. doi: 10.1080/15325024.2010.519287

Loevinger, J. (1987). Ego development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Maslow, A. (1965). Self-actualization and beyond. In Conference on the Training of

Councelors of Adults (pp. 108-131). Chatham: New England Board of Higher Ed.,

Centre for the Study of Liberal Ed. for Adults.

Meadows, D., Meadows, D., Randers, J., & Behrens III, W. (1972). The limits to growth (1st

ed.). New York, NY: Universe Books.

Naito, T. (2015). Moral development. In E. Turiel, Handbook of child psychology and

developmental science (pp. 1-39).

Neff, K., & Pommier, E. (2013). The Relationship between Self-compassion and Other-

focused Concern among College Undergraduates, Community Adults, and Practicing

Meditators. Self And Identity, 12(2), 160-176. doi: 10.1080/15298868.2011.649546

 48

Osbaldiston, R., & Schott, J. (2011). Environmental Sustainability and Behavioral

Science. Environment And Behavior, 44(2), 257-299. doi:

10.1177/0013916511402673

Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. (2004). Strengths of Character and Well-

Being. Journal Of Social And Clinical Psychology, 23(5), 603-619. doi:

10.1521/jscp.23.5.603.50748

Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the Satisfaction With Life Scale. Psychological

Assessment, 5(2), 164-172. doi: 10.1037//1040-3590.5.2.164

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (2009). Die Psychologie des Kindes. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.

Ruch, W., Harzer, C., Proyer, R., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2010). Ways to Happiness in

German-Speaking Countries. European Journal Of Psychological Assessment, 26(3),

227-234. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000030

RStudio Team. (2016). RStudio: Integrated Development for R.. Boston, MA: RStudio, Inc.

Schwartz, C., Meisenhelder, J., Ma, Y., & Reed, G. (2003). Altruistic Social Interest

Behaviors Are Associated With Better Mental Health. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65(5),

778-785. doi: 10.1097/01.psy.0000079378.39062.d4

Seligman, M. (2011). Positive psychology, positive prevention, and positive therapy. In S.

Lopez, Handbook of Positive Psychology (pp. 3-9). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

Shapiro, S., Brown, K., Thoresen, C., & Plante, T. (2010). The moderation of Mindfulness-

based stress reduction effects by trait mindfulness: Results from a randomized

controlled trial. Journal Of Clinical Psychology, 67(3), 267-277. doi:

10.1002/jclp.20761

Shepherd, D., Kuskova, V., & Patzelt, H. (2009). Measuring the values that underlie

sustainable development: The development of a valid scale. Journal Of Economic

 49

Psychology, 30(2), 246-256. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2008.08.003

Snaith, R. P., Hamilton, M., Morley, S., & Humayan, A. (1995). A scale for the assessment of

the hedonic tone: The Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale. British Journal of Psychiatry,

167, 99–103.

Steger, M., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The meaning in life questionnaire:

Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal Of Counseling

Psychology, 53(1), 80-93. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80

Stöcklin, M. (2016). Strukturgleichungsmodelle. Lecture, Basel.

Styles, R., & Atkins, P. (2018). Measuring perceptions of self and others in what people say:

A replication and extension of the functional self-discrimination measure. Journal Of

Contextual Behavioral Science. doi: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.06.005

Svetlova, M., Nichols, S., & Brownell, C. (2010). Toddlers’ Prosocial Behavior: From

Instrumental to Empathic to Altruistic Helping. Child Development, 81(6), 1814-1827.

doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01512.x

Tricomi, E., & Sullivan-Toole, H. (2015). Fairness and inequity aversion. Brain Mapping: An

Encyclopedic Reference, 3, 3-8.

Turner, J., & Reynolds, K. (2012). Self-Categorization Theory. In P. Van Lange, A.

Kruglanski & E. Higgins, Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology (pp. 399-415).

London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi, Singapore: SAGE.

United Nations General Assembly. (2015). Transforming our world : the 2030 Agenda for

Sustainable Development. Retrieved from

http://www.refworld.org/docid/57b6e3e44.html

Vaish, A. (2018). The prosocial functions of early social emotions: the case of guilt. Current
 50

Opinion In Psychology, 20, 25-29. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.08.008

Veenhoven, R. (2008). Measures of gross national happiness. In OECD (Ed.), Statistics,

Knowledge and Policy. Measuring and fostering the progress of societies, 6, 231-253.

Volkmer, J. (2013). Denkwerkzukunft - Memorandum_Psychische_Ressourcen. Retrieved

from

http://www.denkwerkzukunft.de/index.php/aktivitaeten/index/Memorandum_Psychisc

he_Ressourcen

Wang, X., Chen, Z., Poon, K., Teng, F., & Jin, S. (2017). Self-compassion decreases

acceptance of own immoral behaviors. Personality And Individual Differences, 106,

329-333. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.030

Waytz, A., Zaki, J., & Mitchell, J. (2012). Response of Dorsomedial Prefrontal Cortex

Predicts Altruistic Behavior. Journal Of Neuroscience, 32(22), 7646-7650. doi:

10.1523/jneurosci.6193-11.2012

Wesley Schultz, P. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other

people, and the biosphere. Journal Of Environmental Psychology, 21(4), 327-339. doi:

10.1006/jevp.2001.0227

Wilson, D., O'Brien, D., & Sesma, A. (2009). Human prosociality from an evolutionary

perspective: variation and correlations at a city-wide scale. Evolution And Human

Behavior, 30(3), 190-200. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.12.002

Wolak, M. (2017). Package ‘ICC’ [CRAN].

 51

APPENDIX

Appendix A: Items used to measure Solidarity

Appendix B: Items used to measure meaning of life

Appendix C: Items used to measure meaning of life-presence

Appendix D: Items used to measure mindfulness

Appendix E: Items used to measures hedonism

Appendix F: Items used to measure self-efficacy

Appendix G: Items used to measures self-acceptance

Appendix H: Estimates and residuals matrices: Models 1 and 2

Appendix I: Estimates and residuals matrices: Models 3 and 4

 52

Appendix A: Items used to measure Solidarity

PsyFlex 6 (Scale 1 to 7; 1= very often, 7= very rarely)

Ich engagiere mich tatkräftig für das, was ich wichtig, nützlich oder sinnvoll finde.

DAP-PS

1. Ich denke, dass es wichtig ist, anderen Menschen zu helfen.

2. Ich löse Probleme, ohne dabei jemanden zu verletzen.

3. Ich erzähle die Wahrheit, auch dann, wenn es nicht einfach ist.

4. Ich helfe, um meine Umwelt zu verbessern.

5. Ich versuche dabei zu helfen, soziale Probleme zu lösen.

6. Ich entwickle Respekt für andere Menschen.

7. Ich bin empfindsam für die Bedürfnisse und Gefühle anderer Menschen.

8. Ich diene den Anderen in meiner Gesellschaft.

 53

Appendix B: Items used to measure meaning of life

MHC-SF (Scale from 1 to 6; 1= Never, 2 = One or two times, 3 = once a week, 4= About 2 or

3 times a week, 5= Every day, 6 = Almost every day)

14. Wie oft hatten Sie im letzten Monat das Gefühl, dass Ihr Leben eine Richtung hat oder es in

Ihrem Leben einen Sinn gibt?

MLQ (Scale 1 to 7; 1= Absolutely false; 4 = Can not tell if true or false; 7= Absolutely true=

1. Ich kenne den Sinn meines Lebens.

2. Ich suche nach etwas, das meinem Leben Sinn verleiht.

3. Ich bin auf der Suche nach meinem Lebenssinn.

4. Mein Leben hat einen deutlichen Sinn.

5. Mir ist bewusst, was mein Leben sinnvoll macht.

6. Ich habe einen erfüllenden Lebenssinn gefunden.

7. Ich bin immer auf der Suche nach etwas, was mein Leben bedeutungsvoll macht.

8. Ich suche nach einem Lebenssinn oder einer Lebensaufgabe.

9R. Mein Leben hat keinen mir ersichtlichen Sinn. – item reversed

10. Ich suche nach einem Sinn in meinem Leben.

 54

Appendix C: Items used to measure meaning of life presence

MHC-SF (Scale from 1 to 6; 1= Never, 2 = One or two times, 3 = once a week, 4= About 2 or

3 times a week, 5= Every day, 6 = Almost every day)

14. Wie oft hatten Sie im letzten Monat das Gefühl, dass Ihr Leben eine Richtung hat oder es in

Ihrem Leben einen Sinn gibt?

MLQ (Scale 1 to 7; 1= Absolutely false; 4 = Cannot tell if true or false; 7= Absolutely true=

1. Ich kenne den Sinn meines Lebens.

2. Ich suche nach etwas, das meinem Leben Sinn verleiht. – item reversed

3. Ich bin auf der Suche nach meinem Lebenssinn. – item reversed

4. Mein Leben hat einen deutlichen Sinn.

5. Mir ist bewusst, was mein Leben sinnvoll macht.

6. Ich habe einen erfüllenden Lebenssinn gefunden.

7. Ich bin immer auf der Suche nach etwas, was mein Leben bedeutungsvoll macht. – reverse

coded

8. Ich suche nach einem Lebenssinn oder einer Lebensaufgabe. – item reversed

9R. Mein Leben hat keinen mir ersichtlichen Sinn. – item reversed

10. Ich suche nach einem Sinn in meinem Leben. – item reversed
 55

Appendix D: Items used to measure mindfulness

PsyFlex (Scale 1 to 7; 1= very often, 7= very rarely) item reversed

"1. Auch wenn ich in Gedanken wo anders bin, kann ich in wichtigen Momenten auf das

achten, was gerade vor sich geht.

2. Wenn es darauf ankommt, kann ich unangenehme Gefühle und Erlebnisse geschehen lassen,

ohne sie gleich loswerden zu müssen.

3. Hinderliche Gedanken kann ich mit Abstand betrachten, ohne mich von ihnen beherrschen zu

lassen.

4. Auch wenn mich Gedanken und Erlebnisse durcheinander bringen, kann ich so etwas wie

einen ruhenden Pol in mir wahrnehmen."

 56

Appendix E: Items used to measures hedonism/capacity for pleasure

MHC-SF, (Scale from 1 to 6; 1= Never, 2 = One or two times, 3 = once a week, 4= About 2 or

3 times a week, 5= Every day, 6 = Almost every day)

"Wie oft hatten Sie im letzten Monat das Gefühl, dass...

1. ... Sie glücklich sind?

2. ... Sie am Leben interessiert sind?

3. ... Sie mit Ihrem Leben zufrieden sind?"

PSS (Scale 1 to 5; 1=never, 5=very often)

"1. Wie oft hatten Sie sich in den letzten 4 Wochen darüber aufgeregt, dass etwas völlig

Unerwartetes eingetreten ist?" – item reversed.

"3. Wie oft hatten Sie sich in den letzten 4 Wochen nervös und "gestresst" gefühlt?"

"10. Wie oft hatten Sie in den letzten 4 Wochen das Gefühl, dass sich die Probleme so

aufgestaut haben, dass Sie diese nicht mehr bewältigen können?" – item reversed.
 57

Appendix F: Items used to measure self-efficacy

MHC-SF (Scale from 1 to 6; 1= Never, 2 = One or two times, 3 = once a week, 4= About 2 or

3 times a week, 5= Every day, 6 = Almost every day)

"Wie oft hatten Sie im letzten Monat das Gefühl, dass...

4. ... Sie einen wichtigen Beitrag in der Gesellschaft leisten können?

10. ... Sie die Anforderungen Ihres Alltags gut meistern?

PSS (Scale 1 to 5; 1=never, 5=very often)

"2. Wie oft hatten Sie in den letzten 4 Wochen das Gefühl, wichtige Dinge in Ihrem Leben

nicht beeinflussen zu können?" – item reversed.

 58

Appendix G: Items used to measures self-acceptance

PsyFlex (Scale 1 to 7; 1= very often, 7= very rarely) – items reversed"

" 5. Ich bestimme, was für mich wichtig ist und entscheide, wofür ich meine Energie einsetzen

möchte.

7.Ich begegne mir selbst mit Toleranz, Wohlwollen und Fürsorglichkeit.

MHC-SF (Scale from 1 to 6; 1= Never, 2 = One or two times, 3 = once a week, 4= About 2 or

3 times a week, 5= Every day, 6 = Almost every day)

"Wie oft hatten Sie im letzten Monat das Gefühl, dass...

9. ... .Sie die meisten Facetten Ihrer Persönlichkeit mögen?

12. ... Sie Erfahrungen gemacht haben, an welchen Sie wachsen, und einen bessere Person

werden können?

13. ... Sie selbstbewusst eigene Ideen oder Meinungen gebildet und geäussert haben?"
 59

Appendix H: Estimates and residuals matrices, models 1 und 2

Model 1:

Model 2:
 60

Appendix I: Estimates and residual matrices, models 3 and 4

Model 3:

Model 4: