Reclassifying congruence in wellbeing: a systematic review and alignment framework

Research on wellbeing has increasingly shifted toward within-person and short-timescale processes, yet remains conceptually fragmented across motivational, relational, and value-based literatures. Constructs reflecting congruence between internal standards (e.g., needs, values, identity) and lived experience are widely studied but rarely integrated. This systematic review aimed to synthesize how alignment-related processes are defined, operationalized, and empirically linked to momentary wellbeing and short-term disruption/recovery within individuals. A PRISMA-informed systematic review was conducted across major psychological and interdisciplinary databases. Studies were included if they examined motivational, moral/value, or relational alignment processes and assessed momentary or short-term wellbeing outcomes using within-person, repeated-measures, or theoretically relevant designs. A total of 130 empirical and conceptual studies met inclusion criteria. Data were extracted using a structured protocol and synthesized using interpretive conceptual analysis. Findings indicate that the literature does not converge on a single construct of alignment, but rather reflects multiple functionally distinct processes involving correspondence between internal orientations and lived experience. These processes can be organized into (a) indicators of correspondence (e.g., autonomous motivation, value congruence), (b) contextual conditions shaping their expression (e.g., autonomy support), and (c) mechanisms linking alignment to outcomes (e.g., psychological need satisfaction). Empirical evidence is strongest at momentary and same-day timescales, with consistent within-person associations with affect, vitality, and engagement. Evidence for lagged or extended temporal dynamics is comparatively limited. Support is most robust for motivational processes, moderate for relational processes, and comparatively weak for value-based processes, particularly in temporally sensitive designs. Alignment is best understood as a multi-process, multi-domain framework rather than a unified construct. This review clarifies conceptual overlap, identifies asymmetries in empirical support, and delineates conditions under which dynamic models of wellbeing can be more rigorously tested. Findings provide a foundation for developing process-based, within-person models of flourishing.