Sudden and unexpected major social events not only reshape the public order of society and drastically change people’s daily lives, but also greatly affect people’s mental health status (Yu et al., 2022). Anxiety and depression are increasing, while well-being continues to decline under the condition of major emergencies (Yu et al., 2022). Over the past three decades, happiness—or, more broadly, subjective well-being—has become an important topic in public policy, economics, and psychology (Steptoe, 2019). Subjective well-being refers to an individual’s evaluations and feelings about their own life (Diener et al., 2018). Common sense tells us that people’s subjective well-being is impaired when they experience major traumas (Cohen & Cairns, 2012). In significant public events such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, as well as personal events like the death of a loved one or experiencing financial setbacks, a person’s anxiety and depressive emotions tend to rise while their sense of subjective well-being consistently declines (Bojanowska et al., 2021; Huang & Zhao, 2020). Social and familial emergencies are common sources of stress. Several studies conducted in countries such as the United States (Kachanoff et al., 2021), Japan (Ueda et al., 2020), and Ireland (Lades et al., 2020) have shown a significant decrease in people’s subjective well-being due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Research in China has also indicated that the outbreak of the pandemic increased anxiety and decreased subjective well-being (Z. Wang et al., 2021). The reason why emotional reactions to unexpected events reduce an individual’s subjective well-being is that such events put them in a state of stress and tension, causing them to focus inwardly on their own emotions, needs, and conditions, leading to excessive self-focus and a tendency to become self-centered in their thinking, reducing attention and engagement with the outside world, and causing them to become more closed, conservative, and withdrawn (Yu et al., 2022).

 

Moreover, emotional reactions triggered by unexpected events may shake an individual’s existing values and goals (Riese et al., 2014). They may invest their time, energy, and value orientation into emotional reactions to the unexpected event, lacking concern and attention for the external world (Wilson & Gilbert, 2005). As social animals, humans have a basic need to establish connections with others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Emotional reactions to unexpected events pull a person’s focus back to their own circumstances and situations, rather than focusing on others (Riese et al., 2014). Self-transcendence refers to individuals attending to the needs of others and society rather than being confined to their own needs (Otway & Carnelley, 2013). If a person can focus on transcending self-related matters, such as the welfare of others and positive interpersonal relationships, it can help attenuate emotional reactions to unexpected events and buffer the individual against adverse life conditions (Kitson et al., 2020). Previous studies have demonstrated that altruism (i.e., self-transcendent values) can influence enduring subjective well-being through emotional stability and a sense of harmony (Dambrun, 2017). Thus, establishing connections with others and experiencing socially oriented emotions can promote feelings of harmonious coexistence, thereby increasing enduring subjective well-being experiences. Self-determination theory posits that the satisfaction of basic needs can promote subjective well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Conversely, emotional reactions to unexpected events can lead individuals to focus on their own needs, hindering their consideration of others’ needs and responses, reducing self-transcendence, confining a person to their own misfortunes and difficulties, further increasing sensitivity to negative information, and making it easier to capture negative events in the environment, thereby impeding the attainment of subjective well-being.

 

Lower levels of self-transcendence may prompt individuals to become more introverted and isolated, making it difficult for them to establish connections with others, leading to increased social barriers and feelings of loneliness, heightened sensitivity to negative information, and reduced subjective well-being (Kao et al., 2017). In other words, lower levels of self-transcendence may correlate with neuroticism in a person’s personality. Although personality is stable to a certain extent, it is not static and is susceptible to environmental influences (Billstedt et al., 2014). Individuals with high self-transcendence are often able to overcome difficulties and reach their goals with determination and perseverance in the face of difficulties and obstacles, thus focusing on the goal itself. Those with low self-transcendence, on the other hand, have difficulty in overcoming difficulties with courage and determination, and are prone to negative emotional experiences and focus on the outside (Hong, 2006). Neuroticism is a personality trait characterized by higher sensitivity to negative information and lower sensitivity to positive information (Hong, 2006). That is to say, when self-transcendence is low, individuals are more likely to focus on their own emotions, needs, and states. Excessive self-focus leads to paying more attention to negative emotions and information, which increases neurotic tendencies, and it also causes individuals to be more prone to anxiety and tension, decreasing their subjective well-being (Hervas & Vazquez, 2011). Existing research has found that people with high neuroticism tend to have lower subjective well-being because they have a stronger bias toward negative information, are more susceptible to negative information, and are more likely to have difficulty being happy (Ng, 2009; Ng & Kang, 2022).

 

Thus, we proposed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Emotional reactions to unexpected events will be negatively correlated with self-transcendence and subjective well-being, and positively correlated with neuroticism.

Hypothesis 2: Self-transcendence will be positively associated with subjective well-being, while neuroticism will be negatively associated with subjective well-being.

 

We constructed a structural equation model to explore the relationships between stress responses, self-transcendence, neuroticism, and well-being. This model is illustrated in Figure 1.

We recruited 530 participants from an undergraduate institution in Inner Mongolia, China, through recruitment advertisements. After excluding invalid questionnaires (e.g., zigzag responses, selecting the same option for all items, missing values exceeding 3%), we obtained 509 valid questionnaires. Among the respondents, there were 262 women (51.47%; M_age = 20.05 years, SD = 0.58) and 247 men (48.53%; M_age = 20.08 years, SD = 0.50).

 

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of Hetao College. The participants provided informed consent. Data collection took place on computers in a behavioral laboratory capable of accommodating 30 participants. Researchers grouped participants into time slots and provided uniform instructions. It took participants 10–15 minutes to complete the questionnaire.

We employed the Questionnaire on Responses to Public Health Emergencies developed by Gao et al. (2004) to measure individual emotional responses to sudden events. This scale is primarily used to assess respondents’ emotional reactions during public health emergencies. The questionnaire comprises 25 items divided across five dimensions: depression (six items, e.g., “Feeling lethargic, brain fog, lack of concentration, poor memory”), neurasthenia (five items, e.g., “I cannot control excessive tension”), fear (six items, e.g., “I am very concerned about any discomfort in my body”), obsessive anxiety (five items, e.g., “I have symptoms such as dizziness, palpitations, bloating, constipation, or diarrhea”), and hypochondria (two items, e.g., “If I get symptoms related to a sudden public health emergencies, I may suspect I have been infected”). Items are rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never/seldom) to 4 (always/severely). Scores on the scale directly reflect an individual’s emotional state, with higher scores indicating more severe emotional reactions. Cronbach’s alpha was .91, indicating the scale is reliable.

 

We utilized the Chinese version (Duan, 1996) of the General Well-Being Schedule (Fazio, 1977). This scale consists of 18 items divided across six dimensions: health worry (two items, e.g., “Are you troubled by discomfort, pain, or fear of illness?”), which is measured on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree); energy level (four items, e.g., “Do you feel clear headed and energetic after waking up?”), which is measured on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree); satisfaction and interest in life (two items, e.g., “Is your daily life filled with things that interest you?”), which is measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree); depressed or cheerful mood (three items, e.g., “How depressed or happy do you feel?”), which is rated on a 10-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree); control over emotions and behavior (three items, e.g., “Do you have reason to doubt that you have ever lost your sanity, or lost control over your behavior, speech, thoughts, or memory?”), which is rated on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree); and relaxation and tension (four items, e.g., “Do you feel anxious, worried, or uneasy?”), which is rated on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate higher levels of well-being. Cronbach’s alpha was .82, indicating the scale is reliable.

 

We employed the Self-Transcendence Scale developed by Zhao et al. (2018) to measure individuals’ level of self-transcendence. Initially, this scale was designed to measure self-transcendence levels in adolescents (Zhao et al., 2018), and later researchers utilized it to assess self-transcendence levels in college students (e.g., Zhang et al., 2023), finding it to possess good reliability and validity. The scale comprises 15 items rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 4 (completely agree). Higher scores indicate stronger self-transcendence abilities. A sample item is “I am able to find meaning in my past experiences.” Cronbach’s alpha was .94, indicating the scale is reliable.

 

We assessed neuroticism with the relevant dimension from the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (McCrae et al., 2005), which is a shortened version of the Five-Factor Inventory (McCrae et al., 2004). The neuroticism dimension consists of 12 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). A sample item is “I worry from time to time that something bad is going to happen.” Cronbach’s alpha was .85, indicating acceptable reliability.

We conducted data processing and analysis using SPSS 22.0 and Mplus 8.0. First, we employed Harman’s single-factor test to examine the presence of common method bias in the data. The results indicated that 14 factors had eigenvalues greater than 1. The first factor accounted for 23.36% of the variance, which is below the critical criterion of 50% (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986), suggesting there was no significant common method bias in the current study. Subsequently, we performed descriptive and correlational analyses using SPSS 22.0. Finally, we constructed a structural equation model using Mplus 8.0 software to test the hypotheses.

As shown in Table 1, the correlation analysis revealed that emotional reactions to unexpected events was negatively correlated with subjective well-being and self-transcendence, and positively correlated with neuroticism. Meanwhile, self-transcendence was positively correlated with subjective well-being and negatively correlated with neuroticism.

We constructed a structural equation model with emotional reactions to unexpected events as the independent variable, subjective well-being as the outcome variable, and self-transcendence and neuroticism as the mediating variables. This model demonstrated a good fit to the data, χ²/df = 4.016, comparative fit index = .922, Tucker–Lewis index = .906, root-mean-square error of approximation = .077, standardized root-mean-square residual = .056, as shown in Figure 2.

We employed the bias-corrected percentile bootstrapping method to test the mediation effects, revealing that none of the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the indirect paths included 0, indicating significant mediation paths. Emotional reactions to unexpected events negatively predicted subjective well-being, β = –.284, SE = 0.046, 95% CI [–0.375, –0.192], p < .001. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Self-transcendence, β = –.203, SE = 0.024, 95% CI [–0.253, –0.160], p < .001, and neuroticism, β = –.061, SE = 0.019, 95% CI [–0.110, –0.031], p < .001, served as mediators. Self-transcendence and neuroticism also acted as sequential mediators, β = –.037, SE = 0.031, 95% CI [–0.072, –0.017], p = .006. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported.

 

The mediation effects results are presented in Table 2. To better understand the independent variance explained by each construct in the mediation model, we calculated effect sizes. The results indicated that the direct effect independently explained 48.55% of the impact of emotional reactions to unexpected events on subjective well-being. The indirect effect independently explained 51.45% of the influence of neuroticism on subjective well-being.

Unexpected and major events greatly impact the state of mental health of the population. In this study we examined the relationship between emotional reactions to unexpected events and well-being and its underlying mechanisms, and found that emotional reactions to unexpected events were negatively correlated with subjective well-being, with self-transcendence and neuroticism playing a mediating role. This is consistent with previous research showing that emotional reactions to unexpected events are negatively correlated with subjective well-being (Stawski et al., 2008). Emotions are related to the fulfillment of psychological needs, which depend on the specific situation and are often volatile and unstable (Watson et al., 1988). When individuals are under stress, they experience varying degrees of emotions such as joy, anger, sadness, fear, and surprise (Y. Wang & Luo, 2003). Anxiety, depression, and anger are commonly observed in stress responses to unexpected events (Riese et al., 2014). Rising levels of anxiety and depression during unexpected events are associated with a continuous decline in subjective well-being (Bojanowska et al., 2021; Huang & Zhao, 2020).

 

Our findings also indicate that emotional reactions to unexpected events not only directly impact subjective well-being but also have an indirect effect through influencing self-transcendence. Emotional reactions to unexpected events lead individuals to focus more on their own emotions and experiences and less on the emotional states of others, whether as individuals or as a part of wider society (Charles et al., 2013). However, humans have a need for belonging, which requires attention to transcending the self and fostering positive interpersonal relationships (Ryan & Deci, 2001). In other words, emotional reactions to unexpected events may decrease a person’s self-transcendence. Individuals with low self-transcendence tend to focus inward, hindering the basic need for belonging and connection with others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 2000), and emotional reactions to unexpected public events reduce self-transcendence. This perspective aligns with the findings of the current study. Emotional reactions to unexpected public events may increase individuals’ self-focus, making them particularly sensitive to self-threatening information. When encountering potential threat information, people tend to engage in defensive reactions (Karnaze & Levine, 2020), such as displaying hostility, anger, or even engaging in aggressive behaviors that are harmful to others (Tamir, 2016). This defense further reduces their social adaptability and subjective well-being (X. Liu & Fernando, 2024). People with higher levels of self-transcendence exhibit strong characteristics of altruism, shifting their focus from the self to others and genuinely caring about others’ subjective well-being (P. Liu et al., 2022). Previous research has shown that higher levels of self-transcendence can effectively reduce an individual’s defensive self-focus on physiological threats (e.g., health issues, death) and psychological threats (e.g., social exclusion, gender stereotypes), thereby leading to higher subjective well-being (P. Liu et al., 2022).

 

Emotional reactions to unexpected events tend to lead to self-focus and anxiety, reducing an individual’s self-transcendence, while also increasing the instability of their emotions on this basis (Riese et al., 2014). Excessive self-focus may lead to higher levels of neuroticism in individuals (Ormel et al., 2012). In youth, a person’s neuroticism levels are vulnerable to life events, and as the level of life contingencies increases, an individual’s neuroticism level increases (Yao et al., 2009). Negative environmental information may be responsible for higher neuroticism levels in young adults (Yao et al., 2009). Changes in individual neuroticism are shaped by environmental factors (Caspi & Shiner, 2011; Roberts & Wood, 2006). Studies on identical twins suggest that a substantial portion of neuroticism variation is due to nongenetic and nonfamily factors (Keller et al., 2005; Lake et al., 2000). The magnitude of this nongenetic component of neuroticism increases with age (Laceulle et al., 2013; McCartney et al., 1990) and may reflect a response to changes occurring in an individual’s life. It has long been believed that life events and experiences reinforce the tendency that initially led people to acquire these experiences, shaping personality development (Karnaze & Levine, 2020). In this study we found that an increase in neuroticism levels weakened an individual’s attainment of subjective well-being. This may be due to emotional reactions triggered by unexpected events, which increase the tendency towards self-focus, leading to increased sensitivity to negative information. Consequently, people become more susceptible to the influence of negative information, thereby reducing their subjective well-being.

 

We have elucidated the relationship between emotional reactions to unexpected events and subjective well-being, with our results suggesting that such reactions not only directly decrease individuals’ subjective well-being but also, by reducing self-transcendence and increasing neuroticism, further diminish subjective well-being. This provides valuable insights and avenues for psychological interventions for people experiencing unexpected events. We also constructed a path model illustrating how emotional reactions to unexpected events affect subjective well-being, thus providing initial methods to mitigate the adverse consequences of such reactions.

 

However, the study has certain limitations. First, we examined the sole impact of emotional reactions to unexpected events on subjective well-being, without manipulating individual emotional responses. Second, the study focused only on college students, lacking investigation into middle-aged and older adult populations, thus limiting its external validity. Future research could examine the effectiveness of this model across different age groups. Last, compared to Western cultures, Eastern cultures prioritize the interests of others and society, emphasizing higher collectivist values (J. H. Liu & Xie, 2023). Emotional reactions triggered by unexpected events may have a greater disruptive effect on an individual’s social attributes and a more profound impact on subjective well-being within an Eastern cultural context.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

 

Billstedt, E., Skoog, I., Duberstein, P., Marlow, T., Hällström, T., André, M., Lissner, L., Björkelund, C., Ostling, S., & Waern, M. (2014). A 37-year prospective study of neuroticism and extraversion in women followed from mid-life to late life. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 129(1), 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.12093

 

Bojanowska, A., Kaczmarek, Ł. D., Koscielniak, M., & Urbańska, B. (2021). Changes in values and well-being amidst the COVID-19 pandemic in Poland. PLoS ONE, 16(9), Article e0255491. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255491

 

Caspi, A., & Shiner, R. (2011). Temperament and personality. In M. Rutter & D. Bishop (Eds.), Adolescent psychiatry (5th ed., pp. 182–198). Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444300895.ch14

 

Charles, S. T., Piazza, J. R., Mogle, J., Sliwinski, M. J., & Almeida, D. M. (2013). The wear and tear of daily stressors on mental health. Psychological Science, 24(5), 733–741. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612462222

 

Cohen, K., & Cairns, D. (2012). Is searching for meaning in life associated with reduced subjective well-being? confirmation and possible moderators. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(2), 313–331.

 

Dambrun, M. (2017). Self-centeredness and selflessness: Happiness correlates and mediating psychological processes. PeerJ, 5, Article e3306. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3306

 

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

 

Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Tay, L. (2018). Advances in subjective well-being research. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(4), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0307-6

 

Duan, J. (1996). The Overall Happiness Scale: Trial results and analysis among Chinese college students [In Chinese]. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 4(1), 56–57.

 

Fazio, A. F. (1977). A concurrent validational study of the NCHS General Well-Being Schedule. Vital and Health Statistics. Series 2, Data Evaluation and Methods Research, 73, 1–53.

 

Gao, Y., Yang, Y.-F., May, Y.-S., & Yao, K. (2004). Study on emotional responses of college students during the SARS epidemic [In Chinese]. Chinese Journal of Behavioral Medicine Science, 13(6), 62–64.

 

Hervas, G., & Vazquez, C. (2011). What else do you feel when you feel sad? Emotional overproduction, neuroticism and rumination. Emotion, 11(4), 881–895. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021770

 

Hong, L. (2006). Self-transcendence meaning of life moderates in the relation between college stress and psychological well-being [In Chinese]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 38(3), 422–427.

 

Huang, Y., & Zhao, N. (2020). Generalized anxiety disorder, depressive symptoms and sleep quality during COVID-19 outbreak in China: A web-based cross-sectional survey. Psychiatry Research, 288, Article 112954.

 

Kachanoff, F. J., Bigman, Y. E., Kapsaskis, K., & Gray, K. (2021). Measuring realistic and symbolic threats of COVID-19 and their unique impacts on well-being and adherence to public health behaviors. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(5), 603–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620931634

 

Kao, C.-H., Su, J. C., Crocker, J., & Chang, J.-H. (2017). The benefits of transcending self-interest: Examining the role of self-transcendence on expressive suppression and well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(4), 959–975.

 

Karnaze, M. M., & Levine, L. J. (2020). Lay theories about whether emotion helps or hinders: Assessment and effects on emotional acceptance and recovery from distress. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 183.

 

Keller, M. C., Coventry, W. L., Heath, A. C., & Martin, N. G. (2005). Widespread evidence for non-additive genetic variation in Cloninger’s and Eysenck’s personality dimensions using a twin plus sibling design. Behavior Genetics, 35(6), 707–721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-005-6041-7

 

Kitson, A., Chirico, A., Gaggioli, A., & Riecke, B. E. (2020). A review on research and evaluation methods for investigating self-transcendence. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 547687.

 

Laceulle, O. M., Ormel, J., Aggen, S. H., Neale, M. C., & Kendler, K. S. (2013). Genetic and environmental influences on the longitudinal structure of neuroticism: A trait-state approach. Psychological Science, 24(9), 1780–1790. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613481356

 

Lades, L. K., Laffan, K., Daly, M., & Delaney, L. (2020). Daily emotional well‐being during the COVID‐19 pandemic. British Journal of Health Psychology, 25(4), 902–911. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12450

 

Lake, R. I., Eaves, L. J., Maes, H. H., Heath, A. C., & Martin, N. G. (2000). Further evidence against the environmental transmission of individual differences in neuroticism from a collaborative study of 45,850 twins and relatives on two continents. Behavior Genetics, 30(3), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1001918408984

 

Liu, J. H., & Xie, T. (2023). China’s collectivist cosmopolitanism: Harmony and conflict with Western conceptualizations of cosmopolitanism rooted in individualistic notions of human rights. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 17, Article 18344909231194854. https://doi.org/10.1177/18344909231194854

Liu, P., Zhang, W., & Li, D. (2022). The effect and mechanisms of self-transcendence values on durable happiness [In Chinese]. Advances in Psychological Science, 30(3), 660–669. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.00660

 

Liu, X., & Fernando, Y. (2024). Review theories of subjective well-being and the impact of stress: The mediating effect of resilience. International Journal of Innovation Research in Education, Technology and Management, 1(1), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.61098/ijiretm.v1i1.112

 

McCartney, K., Harris, M. J., & Bernieri, F. (1990). Growing up and growing apart: A developmental meta-analysis of twin studies. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 226–237. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.226

 

McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., & Martin, T. A. (2005). The NEO-PI-3: A more readable revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84(3), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8403_05

 

McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Martin, T. A., Oryol, V. E., Rukavishnikov, A. A., Senin, I. G., Hřebíčková, M., & Urbánek, T. (2004). Consensual validation of personality traits across cultures. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00056-4

 

Ng, W. (2009). Clarifying the relation between neuroticism and positive emotions. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(1), 69–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.01.049

 

Ng, W., & Kang, S. H. (2022). Predictors of well‐being during the COVID‐19 pandemic: The importance of financial satisfaction and neuroticism. Journal of Community Psychology, 50(7), 2771–2789. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22795

 

Ormel, J., Riese, H., & Rosmalen, J. G. M. (2012). Interpreting neuroticism scores across the adult life course: Immutable or experience-dependent set points of negative affect? Clinical Psychology Review, 32(1), 71–79.

 

Otway, L. J., & Carnelley, K. B. (2013). Exploring the associations between adult attachment security and self-actualization and self-transcendence. Self and Identity, 12(2), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2012.667570

 

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408

 

Riese, H., Snieder, H., Jeronimus, B. F., Korhonen, T., Rose, R. J., Kaprio, J., & Ormel, J. (2014). Timing of stressful life events affects stability and change of neuroticism. European Journal of Personality, 28(2), 193–200.

 

Roberts, B. W., & Wood, D. (2006). Personality development in the context of the neo-socioanalytic model of personality. In D. K. Mroczek & T. D. Little (Eds.), Handbook of personality development (pp. 11–39). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

 

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68

 

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141

 

Stawski, R. S., Sliwinski, M. J., Almeida, D. M., & Smyth, J. M. (2008). Reported exposure and emotional reactivity to daily stressors: The roles of adult age and global perceived stress. Psychology and Aging, 23(1), 52–61.

 

Steptoe, A. (2019). Happiness and health. Annual Review of Public Health, 40(1), 339–359.

 

Tamir, M. (2016). Why do people regulate their emotions? A taxonomy of motives in emotion regulation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20(3), 199–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315586325

 

Ueda, M., Stickley, A., Sueki, H., & Matsubayashi, T. (2020). Mental health status of the general population in Japan during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 74(9), 505–506.

 

Wang, Y., & Luo, Y. (2003). Specialty of mood disorders and treatment during emergent events of public health [In Chinese]. Advances in Psychological Science, 11(4), 387–392. https://journal.psych.ac.cn/adps/EN/Y2003/V11/I04/387

 

Wang, Z., Luo, S., Xu, J., Wang, Y., Yun, H., Zhao, Z., Zhan, H., & Wang, Y. (2021). Well-being reduces COVID-19 anxiety: A three-wave longitudinal study in China. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22(8), 3593–3610.

 

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.

 

Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2005). Affective forecasting: Knowing what to want. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(3), 131–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00355.x

 

Yao, S., Luo, Y., Yang, J., Wang, X., & Zhu, X. (2009). Neuroticism as a vulnerability factor to depression symptoms in university students: A multi-wave longitudinal study [In Chinese]. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 17(5), 598–604.

 

Yu, K., Jiao, L., Guo, Z., Shi, H., Zhao, J., Xu, Y., & Ren, A. (2022). Changes in values and well-being during major emergencies: Based on latent growth and cross-lagged models [In Chinese]. Psychological Exploration, 42(2), 136–143.

 

Zhang, C., Guan, J. Y., Xu, Q., & Hou, Z. (2023). The relationship between social comparison tendency and materialism [In Chinese]. China Journal of Health Psychology, 31(3), 418–422.

 

Zhao, Y., Liu, M., & Lv, Q. (2018). Validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the Self-Transcendence Scale [In Chinese]. Chinese Journal of Mental Health, 32(8), 689–694.