VOCATIONAL INTERESTS AND FLOURISHING: HOW RIASEC PROFILES PREDICT PERMA WELL-BEING AMONG PSYCHOLOGY STUDENTS
Abstract
This study explores the association between John Holland’s RIASEC vocational‐interest model and multidimensional psychological well- being, assessed with the PERMA framework, in a cohort of psychology undergraduates. The work is grounded in the person–environment fit approach, which posits that congruence between an individual’s interests and the characteristics of the occupational environment promotes subjective flourishing. Data were collected from 151 second-year psychology majors using Ukrainian adaptations of the RIASEC inventory and the PERMA-Profiler. The Social interest type showed the strongest correlation with overall well-being (r = .38, p < .001), followed by the Artistic (r = .31, p = .004) and Investigative (r = .28, p = .009) types. In contrast, the Realistic (r = –.05), Conventional (r = –.09), and Enterprising (r = .12) types were not significantly related to the PERMA flourishing index. Hierarchical regression revealed that the combined S–A–I profile uniquely accounted for 48 % of the variance in global PERMA.These findings highlight the value of integrating creative, research-focused, and socially oriented modules into psychology curricula to enhance person– environment fit. Profiling students’ RIASEC interests may also be a helpful tool for admission screening and ongoing support, helping mitigate the risk of emotional burnout. Against the backdrop of the ongoing war in Ukraine, the results underscore the importance of social and creative resources as resilience factors for university students. Further longitudinal studies are needed to test the causal nature of the identified relationships and their generalizability to other academic majors.
References
2. Butler, J., & Kern, M.L. (2016). The PERMA-Profiler: A brief multidimensional measure of flourishing. International journal of wellbeing, 6(3).
3. Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
4. Cotter, E.W., & Fouad, N.A. (2011). The relationship between subjective well-being and vocational personality type. Journal of Career Assessment, 19(1), 51–60.
5. Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Tay, L. (2018). Advances in subjective well-being research. Nature human behaviour, 2(4), 253–260.
6. Holland, J.L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments. Psychological Assessment Resources.
7. Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian journal of statistics, 65–70.
8. Kristof‐Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D., & Johnson, E.C. (2005). Consequences OF INDIVIDUALS’FIT at work: A meta‐analysis OF person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel psychology, 58(2), 281–342.
9. Nye, C.D., Su, R., Rounds, J., & Drasgow, F. (2012). Vocational interests and performance: A quantitative summary of over 60 years of research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(4), 384–403.
10. Rounds, J., & Su, R. (2014). The nature and power of interests. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(2), 98–103.
11. Ryff, C.D., & Singer, B.H. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of happiness studies, 9, 13–39.
12. Seligman, M.E. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Simon and Schuster.
13. Shapiro, S.S., & Wilk, M.B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3–4), 591–611.
ISSN 
