Recent research has increasingly emphasized the multifaceted nature of psychological well-being. Since the emergence of Positive Psychology, scholarly attention has focused on understanding human efforts, achievements, and potential (Wood et al., 2011). At this point, well-being has traditionally been conceptualized through two complementary models: the hedonic and the eudaimonic.

The hedonic model emphasizes the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of discomfort. It typically comprises three components—positive affect, negative affect, and life satisfaction (Diener et al., 1985)—which together capture individuals’ subjective evaluation of their hedonic well-being (Disabato et al., 2016). On the other hand, the eudaimonic model focuses on the development of personal potentials and virtues (Ryff et al., 1995). Ryff and Singer (1996) proposed a model that conceptualizes eudaimonic well-being in terms of dimensions such as autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, purpose in life, and self-acceptance.

Although conceptually distinct, recent studies highlight the value of integrating these two perspectives, as hedonic and eudaimonic factors appear to function as related subcomponents within a broader overarching construct of well-being (Disabato et al., 2016). This integrative view has motivated research into the psychological variables that shape both forms of well-being. For example, studies have demonstrated that self-control is positively linked to hedonic and eudaimonic well-being (Li et al., 2022). A plausible explanation is that self-control facilitates the pursuit of long-term, meaningful goals (supporting eudaimonia), while also helping individuals manage impulsive behaviors that may undermine positive emotions (supporting hedonia). Additionally, eudaimonic motives show positive associations with self-control, whereas hedonic motives tend to relate negatively to it (Zeng and Chen, 2020), suggesting that these motivational orientations may differentially influence regulatory processes.

A growing body of evidence has also highlighted the influence of personal values on well-being, particularly through processes of self-affirmation. Congruence between individual values and contextual values fosters higher well-being (Sagiv and Schwartz, 2021). Positive associations have additionally been observed between psychological well-being and both academic performance (Bücker et al., 2018; Hossain et al., 2022) and occupational functioning (Di Fabio, 2017; Tims et al., 2013). These findings suggest that psychological well-being may operate as a facilitator of optimal functioning across life domains and contexts.

Conversely, research on young populations has shown consistent negative relationships between well-being and health risk behaviors such as substance use, unhealthy diet, sedentary lifestyle, sleep deprivation, and depressive symptomatology (Calderon et al., 2021). Well-being has also been found to buffer the psychological factors involved in physical illness and to promote more complete recovery processes (DuPont et al., 2020).

Despite the considerable knowledge accumulated, important gaps remain. Specifically, the psychological and contextual mechanisms that modulate, mediate, or predict psychological well-being are still not fully understood. Identifying these mechanisms—particularly among young populations—may contribute to the design of interventions aimed at promoting optimal psychological functioning.

Psychological strengths, or character strengths, are relatively stable personal resources that enable individuals to perform at their best (Gander et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2022). Seligman (2002) distinguishes three life orientations conducive to happiness: the pleasant life, the engaged life, and the meaningful life. In this context, Peterson and Seligman (2004) developed the most widely used scientific classification of character strengths, identifying 24 strengths grouped into six core virtues: justice, humanity, wisdom and knowledge, transcendence, temperance, and courage. This framework, known as the Values in Action (VIA) classification, was designed to represent universal positive qualities identifiable across cultures and historical periods (Dahlsgaard et al., 2005).

Recent research stresses the importance of examining how both individual and contextual characteristics shape the development of character strengths. Furnham and Lester (2012), for example, reported that personality factors—particularly extraversion—are strong predictors of strengths and virtues. They also observed gender differences, with young women tending to show higher development in emotional and interpersonal strengths, whereas men scored higher on cognitive strengths. Similarly, Cosentino and Castro Solano (2012) conducted a cultural context study of character strengths and found that these strengths varied according to ethnicity group.

A substantial body of research has demonstrated a robust positive relationship between character strengths and well-being (DuPont et al., 2020; Dahlsgaard et al., 2005). Zhang and Chen (2018) additionally identified that the actual use of strengths mediates the relationship between character strengths and well-being, suggesting that strengths exert their positive effects through behavioral expression.

Evidence from child and adolescent populations further indicates favorable associations between strengths and indicators of well-being across diverse cultural contexts (Khanna et al., 2021), along with negative associations between strengths and behavioral problems or risk factors (Jabbari et al., 2021). Among university students, strengths have been linked not only to higher well-being (Green, 2022; Zhang and Chen, 2018) but also to stable academic performance over time (Gander et al., 2020). Consequently, interventions based on psychological strengths have repeatedly shown increases in both subjective and psychological well-being (Green, 2022; Hausler et al., 2017; Khanna et al., 2021).

Taken together, existing evidence indicates that psychological strengths are closely tied to positive functioning and higher levels of mental health (Azañedo et al., 2021; Zhang and Chen, 2018). These strengths are therefore relevant for understanding the psychological (e.g., meaning, personal growth) and emotional (e.g., positive affect) dimensions of well-being (Liu et al., 2022).

Self-regulation refers to the capacity to plan, monitor, and evaluate actions directed toward achieving desired outcomes (de la Fuente et al., 2022a; Inzlicht et al., 2021). Several theoretical models have contributed to the conceptualization of behavioral regulation. For example, the Self-Regulation Model (Carver and Scheier, 2001) draws on cybernetic principles and distinguishes four components: goal setting, monitoring of current behavior, detection of threats or discrepancies, and mechanisms to reduce gaps between actual and desired states (Inzlicht et al., 2021). The Goal Systems Theory (Kruglanski et al., 2002) examines how the structure and organization of goals influence self-regulatory processes.

The Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986) emphasizes the interplay of personal, behavioral, and environmental factors in human functioning, proposing that individuals act to maintain a sense of agency. Derived from this theory, models such as Self-Determination Theory (Deci and Ryan, 1985a, 1985b, 2000) describe a progression from externally regulated to self-regulated behavior (de la Fuente et al., 2022a). Likewise, the Theory of Self-Regulated Learning (Zimmerman and Schunk, 2001, 2011) delineates three phases—forethought, performance, and self-reflection—through which individuals become aware of and regulate their learning processes (de la Fuente et al., 2022a).

Although each of these models has contributed to advancing the conceptual understanding of self-regulation, they share certain limitations. Specifically, they tend to (1) underestimate the influence of external regulation on the individual’s regulatory behavior, (2) fail to distinguish between different types of regulatory behavior (regulatory, non-regulatory, and dysregulatory), and (3) overlook self-regulation as a predictive variable connecting macro-level processes (de la Fuente et al., 2022a).

In response to these limitations, the Self- vs. External-Regulation of Behavior Theory (de la Fuente et al., 2021, 2022a, 2022b) proposes a more integrative framework. This model explains behavior based on the interplay between individuals’ own regulatory characteristics and the regulatory qualities of their context (de la Fuente et al., 2022b; de la Fuente and Kauffman, 2025).

Building upon previous explanatory models—including the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich and De Groot, 1990), the Self-Regulated Learning Model (Zimmerman, 1989), Self-Determination Theory (Deci and Ryan, 1987), and Miller and Brown’s Behavioral Self-Regulation Model (Miller and Brown, 1991)—this theory seeks to clarify how self-regulation and external contextual factors jointly shape behavioral regulatory tendencies across educational, clinical, health, social, and organizational settings (de la Fuente et al., 2022a, 2022b).

The model proposes three levels of self-regulatory behavior: Self-Regulation (SRG), Non-Regulation (NRG), and Dys-Regulation (DRG) (de la Fuente et al., 2019; de la Fuente-Arias, 2017). SRG reflects effective behavioral regulation; NRG reflects a lack of proactivity (neutral state); and DRG reflects inadequate behavioral management, characterized by negative proactivity and difficulty controlling thoughts, emotions, and actions.

Similarly, external regulation is conceptualized in three levels: External Regulation (ERG), External Non-Regulation (ENRG), and External Dys-Regulation (EDRG). ERG provides signals and supports that facilitate self-regulated behavior; ENRG lacks cues that promote either regulation or dysregulation; and EDRG involves contextual conditions that encourage negative or maladaptive behavioral tendencies.

The interaction between personal and contextual regulation is assumed to shape individuals’ overall regulatory tendencies, ranging from highly dysregulated to highly regulated states (de la Fuente et al., 2022a, 2022b). However, the predictive and combined effects of these regulatory levels on psychological strengths and psychological well-being remain insufficiently explored. Although earlier studies have identified positive associations between strengths and well-being (e.g., Dahlsgaard et al., 2005; Furnham and Lester, 2012; de la Fuente et al., 2021), the joint role of self-regulation and external regulation in these relationships has not yet been fully examined.

Although previous research has indicated links among regulation processes, psychological strengths, and well-being, empirical evidence on the predictive and mediating mechanisms underlying these associations remains limited. Therefore, the present study aims (1) to examine the predictive relationships between self–external regulation of behavior and psychological strengths, and (2) analyze the mediating role of psychological strengths in the relationship between self–external regulation and psychological well-being.

The study hypothesizes:

Four hundred and fifty-three undergraduates currently doing a degree at public universities in Spain participated in the study. The sample was selected using convenience sampling and comprised students from programs in Psychology, Primary Teaching, and Educational Psychology. Most participants were women (71.4%) and their ages ranged from 18 to 25 years (mean age 20.66; σ = 1.86).

Once the corresponding informed consent obtained through an online platform (de la Fuente, 2015), university students volunteered to complete the validated questionnaires. The teaching-learning processes of the five subjects in which the participants were enrolled in 2016 and 2017 were evaluated. Data were collected from September 2018 to June 2020. This entire procedure was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Navarra under reference 2018.170.

Three types of analyses were conducted (preliminary analysis, predictive analysis and structural equation model) with the standard assumptions for regression analyses assessed beforehand.

Descriptive statistics showed values that suggested a normalized distribution of the variables analyzed in the study sample (Supplementary Table S1). The results show the overall average of each of the six states of Self-External Regulation under study, where the highest mean score were observed for Self-Regulation (MSRG = 4.01, SD = 0.31) and External Regulation (MERG = 3.81, SD = 0.41), while the lowest values were found for External Nonregulation (MENRG = 2.43, SD = 0.45) and External Dysregulation (MEDRG = 2.47, SD = 0.45).

The psychological strengths presented a similar case, where the dimensions with the highest average in the sample were related to justice (M = 4.00, SD = 0.27), humanity (M = 3.96, SD = 0.27), and courage (M = 3.81, SD = 0.26), while those with the lowest values were wisdom and knowledge (M = 3.65, SD = 0.28), temperance (3.56, SD = 0.27), and transcendence (M = 3.51, SD = 0.28). The factors with the highest averages were integrity (M = 4.25; SD = 0.28), kindness (M = 4.18, SD = 0.27), citizenship (M = 4.11; SD = 0.30), and leadership (M = 3.99; SD = 0.30), while those with the lowest averages were self-regulation (M = 3.42; SD = 0.35), forgiveness and mercy (M = 3.40, SD = 0.43), love of learning (M = 3.32, SD = 0.32), and spirituality (M = 2.77; SD = 0.48).

With respect to psychological well-being, the highest averages among the study participants were related to personal growth (M = 4.89; SD = 0.39), positive relationships with others (M = 4.54; SD = 0.46), purpose in life (M = 4.51; SD = 0.46) and self-acceptance (M = 4.54; SD = 0.46), while the lowest values were in the domains of environmental mastery (M = 4.17; SD = 0.41) and autonomy (M = 4.03, SD = 0.41).

A structural prediction model was tested involving six predictive factors—three for Self-Regulation (SRG, NRG, and DRG) and three for External Regulation (ERG, ENRG, and EDRG)—in relation to the dimensions of character strengths (as a mediator variable) and psychological well-being (Table 7). All fit indices of the incremental model were above the threshold of 0.90 (Bentler, 1990). The CFI was 0.928, which was also satisfactory. The RMSEA was 0.08, which lies within the range of acceptable values (Ho, 2006).

Consistent with the first hypothesis, the results revealed significant positive associations and predictive relationships between Self and External Regulation and psychological strengths, both at the global level and across specific dimensions. In contrast, Nonregulation and Dysregulation factors showed negative associations, although only Self and External Regulation emerged as robust predictors in the linear models. Notably, approximately 37% of the variance in psychological strengths was accounted for by these regulatory factors.

These findings suggest that psychological strengths are more strongly associated with adaptive regulatory patterns, particularly when personal regulatory capacities are supported by a facilitative context. From a theoretical perspective, this pattern aligns with the Self- vs. External-Regulation of Behavior Theory (de la Fuente et al., 2021, 2022a, 2022b), which emphasizes that behavioral regulation should be understood as the result of the interaction between individual competencies and contextual regulatory conditions. Rather than emerging solely from internal traits, psychological strengths appear to be fostered within regulatory environments that encourage goal-directed behavior, monitoring, and adjustment.

While earlier studies have reported associations between self-regulation and strengths (Artuch-Garde et al., 2017; Nota et al., 2004) or between perseverance and effort (Mrazek et al., 2018), these investigations primarily focused on individual-level variables. The present study extends this literature by showing that external regulatory conditions also play a relevant predictive role, thereby offering a more integrative account of how psychological strengths may develop. Importantly, these findings do not suggest that regulation causes strengths. Rather, they indicate that regulatory tendencies—both personal and contextual—are systematically associated with higher levels of strengths. This distinction is crucial because regulatory contexts may provide opportunities for the expression and reinforcement of strengths rather than producing them directly.

The analysis of specific strengths offers additional insights into the nuanced role of regulatory behavior. For example, the strength of justice showed positive associations with Self and External Regulation and negative associations with Nonregulation and Dysregulation. Previous research has suggested that justice-oriented behavior requires sustained cognitive effort and self-monitoring, particularly in contexts involving fatigue or moral conflict (Whiteside and Barclay, 2018). From this perspective, the present findings suggest that justice may be more readily expressed in individuals who possess sufficient regulatory resources and operate within contexts that reinforce fairness norms. This interpretation is consistent with neurocognitive accounts highlighting the regulatory demands involved in moral decision-making and norm enforcement (Buckholtz and Marois, 2012).

Similarly, integrity, located within the courage virtue, emerged as one of the most consistently associated strengths, showing positive relationships with Self and External Regulation and negative associations with dysregulatory patterns. Prior studies have linked integrity to self-regulatory processes supporting healthy and value-consistent behavior (Stone and Focella, 2011). In the present study, integrity also functioned as a mediating strength between regulatory behavior and well-being, suggesting that regulatory tendencies may be associated with well-being partly through the facilitation of value-driven behavior. Therefore, integrity proved to be the most consistent strength within the Self- vs. External Regulation of Behavior Theory (de la Fuente et al., 2021; de la Fuente et al., 2022a, 2022b). Again, this mediation should be understood as a predictive pathway rather than a causal mechanism.

An especially novel contribution of this study concerns the positive associations observed between certain transcendence-related strengths (e.g., spirituality, hope, humor) and Dysregulation factors. Although counterintuitive, this pattern suggests that limited or context-dependent dysregulation may coexist with, or even accompany, specific strengths that enable individuals to persist in challenging or uncertain situations. For example, transcendence showed positive associations with Self and External Dysregulation. While empirical evidence on this relationship remains scarce, these findings may be interpreted within frameworks that conceptualize transcendence as a resource for meaning-making under adversity (Kim et al., 2024). In such contexts, rigid adherence to regulatory norms may be temporarily relaxed, allowing individuals to persist based on faith, hope, or existential commitment rather than instrumental cost–benefit evaluations. This interpretation does not imply that dysregulation is beneficial per se, but rather that certain strengths may operate differently under non-normative or stressful conditions. The roles of spirituality and hope further illustrate this complexity. Prior research has yielded mixed findings regarding their associations with well-being (Eichhorn, 2012; Leondari and Gialamas, 2009), likely due to conceptual, cultural, and measurement differences (González-Rivera et al., 2017). The present findings align with studies reporting positive associations between spirituality, hope, well-being, and Self-Regulation (Abente et al., 2022; Villani et al., 2019), while also indicating that these strengths may be activated under dysregulatory conditions. This interpretation is consistent with growing evidence supporting the effectiveness of interventions that incorporate spiritual or existential components (Darvishi et al., 2020; Koenig et al., 2016). Similarly, humor displayed positive associations with both Regulation and Dysregulation, suggesting the coexistence of adaptive and maladaptive humor strategies. Adaptive humor may expand coping options and cognitive flexibility, whereas maladaptive humor may trivialize adversity and reduce perceived agency. This duality aligns with prior work highlighting differential emotional outcomes depending on humor style (Mathews, 2016).

Regarding psychological well-being, the results supported a positive predictive association with Self and External Regulation. Previous studies have linked individual self-regulatory processes to well-being (Tangney et al., 2004; Nyklíček et al., 2011); however, these investigations typically focused on intrapersonal variables. The present study extends this literature by demonstrating that behavioral regulation related to well-being operates at both personal and contextual levels. Nevertheless, the stronger predictive weight of individual regulation relative to external regulation aligns with prior findings suggesting that young adults’ well-being is more closely linked to personal agency than to contextual control (Hofer et al., 2011). This pattern underscores the importance of considering developmental context when interpreting regulatory influences.

In line with the second hypothesis, psychological strengths emerged as mediators in the relationship between Self–External Regulation and well-being. This finding integrates prior evidence indicating that self-regulatory processes are associated with well-being (van Genugten et al., 2017), that self-regulation is linked to higher strengths (Artuch-Garde et al., 2017), and that strengths contribute to well-being (Park and Peterson, 2008). From a theoretical standpoint, psychological strengths may function as mechanisms that translate regulatory tendencies into well-being-related experiences, by facilitating effective coping, meaning-making, and engagement. This mediating role reflects predictive associations rather than causal pathways, for example, individuals with strong self-regulation skills are better equipped to leverage their strengths, allowing them to face challenges and experience well-being. Therefore, developing and implementing psychological strengths can be a useful strategy for enhancing the effects generated of behavioral regulation and increasing the individual’s well-being.

However, our investigation presents various limitations that warrant consideration. First, the explorations were conducted through self-report instruments; the data provide information on the participants’ perceptions of their own self and external regulation processes, which can lead to biased data. Second, the results are based on predictive analyses, which means that the inferences from this study should be adjusted to their predictive nature and should not be interpreted as causal relationships between the analyzed variables. Regarding the scenario under study, the data referred to a higher-education setting, which means that inferences can be made only with respect to such a context. Moreover, the predominance of women in the sample may have influenced the study outcomes. The overrepresentation of female participants could have biased the findings toward patterns more characteristic of women. This issue is particularly relevant given prior evidence of gender differences in character strengths among young populations (Furnham and Lester, 2012). Thus, the results may not be generalizable to the broader undergraduate population. Additionally, the convenience sampling method captures the characteristics of the accessible population rather than offering a fully representative picture of Spanish undergraduates overall. These considerations highlight the need for caution when generalizing the findings and encourage the development of studies that intend to identify the potential fit of the Self- vs. External Regulation Behavior Model in other populations, particularly in communities or clinical settings.