ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

In recent years, well-being researchers have distinguished between eudaimonic happiness (e.g., meaning and purpose; taking part in activities that allow for the actualization of one's skills, talents, and potential) and hedonic happiness (e.g., high frequencies of positive affect, low frequencies of negative affect, and evaluating life as satisfying). Unfortunately, this distinction (rooted in philosophy) does not necessarily translate well to science. Among the problems of drawing too sharp a line between ‘types of happiness’ is the fact that eudaimonia is not well-defined and lacks consistent measurement. Moreover, empirical evidence currently suggests that hedonic and eudaimonic well-being overlap conceptually, and may represent psychological mechanisms that operate together. In this article, we outline the problems and costs of distinguishing between two types of happiness, and provide detailed recommendations for a research program on well-being with greater scientific precision.The purpose of life is to be happy. The Dalai LamaYou will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of. Albert CamusAnd they all lived happily ever after. The Brothers Grimm
A preview of the PDF is not available
... Eudaimonia includes psychological (Ryff, 1989) and social (Keyes, 1998) wellbeing. Evidence that hedonia and eudaimonia are highly correlated (Kashdan et al., 2008) has been used to justify economists' preference for unidimensional measures. However, recent empirical evidence supports separate hedonic versus eudaimonic constructs within MWB Joshanloo and Weijers, 2019) s previously argued in the psychology literature (Ryan and Deci, 2001;Waterman et al., 2008). ...
Article
Full-text available
Policy makers’ ultimate goal is to deliver the highest possible level of population welfare. Economists investigate the effect of socio-economic dimensions on wellbeing using unidimensional measures of life satisfaction or happiness as proxies for welfare. However, social psychologists have shown that wellbeing is a much broader construct and that an intervention may have opposite effects on its components. Unidimensional measures may hide these patterns. Most literature focuses on high-income countries. The growing evidence from low- and middle-income countries also largely relies on standard unidimensional measures. This study tests the validity of this reliance by exploring the wellbeing construct of South African women, quantitatively analysing textual data from focus group discussions to investigate whether unidimensional measures are appropriate in this context. It provides evidence against the indiscriminate use of unidimensional wellbeing measures. Cluster and correspondence analysis of the transcripts show that relevant domains of women’s wellbeing include relations with others, autonomy, and a perception of control over their environment (environmental mastery). Results also reveal that participants have a relational view of themselves, distinct from the individuated view predominant in the US and Europe and the collectivist view found in East Asia. Such relational self-perception modifies study participants’ wellbeing construct in ways that are important for policy implementation and evaluation. For example, women’s autonomy and environmental mastery rely on shared peer-identity to redefine rules and meet challenges. Wellbeing measures for policy evaluation would benefit from incorporating these insights to meaningfully measure progress towards Sustainable Development Goal 3 on ‘good health and wellbeing’ in South Africa and other contexts that exhibit similar concepts of wellbeing.
... It is widely credited that wellbeing is a multifaceted concept that includes multiple domains of human functioning. Wellbeing has been subdivided into subjective, objective, social, psychological, physical, and community wellbeing (Wilkinson, 1979;Kashdan et al., 2008;Burke et al., 2010;Pontin et al., 2013). In this study, they are being used as subjective wellbeing as a subjective experience. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study investigates the relationship between mindfulness, gratitude, and psychological wellbeing of young individuals in Pakistan with the potential role of hopefulness as a mediator between mindfulness, gratitude, and wellbeing. Data were collected from young individuals (18–40 years old) from Pakistan. A total sample of 500 participants was collected by employing the online survey questionnaire, and 374 questionnaires were duly filled and returned. The PLS-SEM technique was used to test the proposed hypotheses. The results of the study found that there is a strong direct relationship between gratitude, mindfulness, and hopefulness, and mindfulness is also strongly correlated with wellbeing. However, the relationship between gratitude and wellbeing was not statistically significant. Moreover, the mediation results reveal that the relationship between mindfulness, gratitude, and wellbeing is significantly mediated by hopefulness. This shows that gratitude and mindfulness are crucial in enhancing wellbeing through hopefulness. This study is an important contribution to validating the broaden-and-build theory, which suggests that hopelessness is a significant factor of a depressive state. It can be indicated that inducing hopefulness could be a significant element of the treatment plan of professional clinical psychologists.
... A notable body of work in this tradition is that of Waterman (2013). He published a series of papers (1990, 1992, 1993, 2007a, 2007b) This book is an attempt to provide the synthesis and clarity that Kashdan et al. (2008) were concerned is lacking in eudaimonic accounts of wellbeing. ...
Chapter
The study of subjective wellbeing has grown substantially in recent decades and is now seeking to influence public policy. The complexities of this new application have revealed weaknesses in the foundations of the field. Its operationalist epistemology was appropriate given its historical context, but undermines its ability to explain the mechanisms by which policy can improve subjective wellbeing. Likewise, the field’s deliberate avoidance of the evaluative element of “wellbeing”—what is “good for” somebody—leaves it poorly equipped to engage with the ethical and political complexities of policymaking. The present volume provides the theoretical depth that the field of subjective wellbeing is lacking by integrating psychological, philosophical, economic, and political perspectives on wellbeing. The end result is a rich and ethically sensitive theory of subjective wellbeing that can underpin scholarly research, inform therapy and self-help, and guide wellbeing public policy
... A notable body of work in this tradition is that of Waterman (2013). He published a series of papers (1990, 1992, 1993, 2007a, 2007b) This book is an attempt to provide the synthesis and clarity that Kashdan et al. (2008) were concerned is lacking in eudaimonic accounts of wellbeing. ...
Chapter
How do you measure a construct as complex as subjective wellbeing? The first part of this chapter reviews the many tools available for measuring each dimension of the construct, as well as the well-being profile—a new measure that holds some promise for capturing subjective wellbeing holistically in only fifteen questions. The second part of the chapter then explains why even fifteen questions is likely too long for many applications in policy and social science. Life satisfaction scales hold a great deal of promise as a unidimensional and sufficiently cardinal measure of subjective wellbeing for these applications. However, there are several concerns about these scales, notably inconsistent scale use across respondents or within respondents over time, that need to be investigated more thoroughly. The chapter provides a conceptual analysis of these concerns and uses them to differentiate adaptation, scale-norming, and reference point shifts.
... A notable body of work in this tradition is that of Waterman (2013). He published a series of papers (1990, 1992, 1993, 2007a, 2007b) This book is an attempt to provide the synthesis and clarity that Kashdan et al. (2008) were concerned is lacking in eudaimonic accounts of wellbeing. ...
Chapter
The purpose of this chapter is twofold. First, to review philosophical arguments against wellbeing theories of the sort I have outlined. This should hopefully sensitize subjective wellbeing scholars to the ethical nuances of applying subjective wellbeing outside the context of academic research. Ethical critiques of subjective wellbeing are especially potent when it is government rather than friends or therapists trying to promote it. This is the second purpose of the chapter: to argue that government should be very cautious about promoting subjective wellbeing directly. They should instead focus on welfare—the options available to citizens. The final part of the chapter discusses ways to begin applying subjective wellbeing in public policy without crossing ethical risky red lines.
... A notable body of work in this tradition is that of Waterman (2013). He published a series of papers (1990, 1992, 1993, 2007a, 2007b) This book is an attempt to provide the synthesis and clarity that Kashdan et al. (2008) were concerned is lacking in eudaimonic accounts of wellbeing. ...
Chapter
While subjective well-being scholarship has its merits, it is not without its weaknesses, and these are the subject of this chapter. While the definition and approach of the field were appropriate in its historical context, they are inappropriate and indeed problematic for applications in public policy. In particular, this chapter demonstrates that the field is naive about the normative implications of “wellbeing” theories and that its measurement instruments lack precision. Both of these faults find their origins in the field’s atheoretic inclinations and operationalist epistemology. It is time to replace this with a more realist epistemology. That requires a thorough theory of subjective wellbeing that engages extensively with normativity, which this book provides.
... A notable body of work in this tradition is that of Waterman (2013). He published a series of papers (1990, 1992, 1993, 2007a, 2007b) This book is an attempt to provide the synthesis and clarity that Kashdan et al. (2008) were concerned is lacking in eudaimonic accounts of wellbeing. ...
Book
The study of “subjective wellbeing” has seen explosive growth in recent decades, opening important new discourses in personality and social psychology, happiness economics, and moral philosophy. Now it is moving into the policy domain. In this it has arguably overstepped its limits. The shallow theoretical base of subjective wellbeing research, the limitations of its measurement instruments, and its ethical naivety make policymaking on the basis of its findings a risky venture. The present volume is an attempt to shore up these weaknesses and set subjective wellbeing scholarship on a course for several more decades of growth and maturation. It presents a theory of subjective wellbeing in two parts. The first is the subjective wellbeing production function—a model of wellbeing as outcome. The second is the coalescence of being—a model of the self-actualization process by which wellbeing is achieved. This two-part model integrates ideas from subjective wellbeing studies with complementary ideas in analytical and continental philosophy, clinical, moral, and developmental psychology, and welfare economics. Importantly, this theory is ethically sensitive, bridging the gap between the philosophical and psychological perspectives on wellbeing in a way that illuminates the complexities facing the application of subjective wellbeing in public policy. The book also provides a thorough review of various ways in which subjective wellbeing can be studied empirically, and the hard trade-offs we face between long surveys that capture the richness of the concept and the parsimony required by social surveys and policy analysis.
Thesis
Full-text available
Bu çalışmanın amacı; erken dönem uyumsuz şemaların PERMA modeline göre iyi oluşu yordayıp yormadığının araştırılmasıdır. Bunun yanında, erken dönem uyumsuz şema alanları ile iyi oluş arasındaki ilişki, cinsiyete ve sosyo-ekonomik düzeye göre öğrencilerin erken dönem uyumsuz şema alanları ve iyi oluş puan ortalamaları arasındaki farklari ncelenmiştir. Erken dönem uyumsuz şemaların ve PERMA modeline göre iyi oluş arasındaki ilişkileri incelemek için ilişkisel (korelasyonel) tarama modeli kullanılmıştır. Araştırma, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi’ne 2018-2019 Eğitim-Öğretim yılının ikinci döneminde devam etmekte olan 602 (365 kadın, 237 erkek) katılımcıdan alınan verilere göre incelenmiştir. Araştırmada verileri toplamak amacıyla, Young Şema Ölçeği Kısa Form-3(YSÖKF-3), PERMA Ölçeği ve Kişisel Bilgi Formu kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde cinsiyet değişkenine göre anlamlı farklılık olup olmadığını test etmek için bağımsız gruplar için t- testi, sosyo-ekonomik düzeye göre farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığını test etmek için tek yönlü varyans analizi (ANOVA), iyi oluş ile erken dönem uyumsuz şema alanları arasında anlamlı bir ilişki olup olmadığını belirlemek için Pearson Momentler Çarpımı Korelasyon analizi ve son olarak erken dönem uyumsuz şema alanlarının iyi oluşu yordayıp yordamadığını test etmek için Çoklu Doğrusal Regresyon Analizi yapılmıştır. Analizler sonucunda, cinsiyete göre diğeri yönelimlilik ve kopukluk şema alanlarında erkekler kadınlara göre daha yüksek puan alırken, zedelenmiş sınırlar şema alanında kadınların erkeklere göre daha yüksek puan ortalamasına sahip olduğu, sosyo-ekonomik düzeye bakıldığında ise yüksek standartlar şema alanı ve iyi oluş için Üst-orta ekonomik düzeydeki bireylerin alt-orta ekonomik düzeydeki bireylerin puan ortalamalarına göre anlamlı bir şekilde daha yüksek olduğu görülmüştür. Erken dönem uyumsuz şema alanları ile iyi oluş (olumlu duygular, hayata bağlılık, olumlu ilişkiler, anlam, başarı) arasında negatif bir ilişki vardır. Erken dönem uyumsuz şema alanlarının PERMA modeline göre iyi oluşu anlamlı bir şekilde yordadığı ve toplam varyansın %36.9’unu açıkladığı görülmüştür. Bulgular literatüre uygun olarak tartışılmış ve araştırmacılar ve uygulamacılar için önerilerde bulunulmuştur.
Article
Publisher Summary This chapter discusses the association of income and happiness. The basic data consist of statements by individuals on their subjective happiness, as reported in thirty surveys from 1946 through 1970, covering nineteen countries, including eleven in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Within countries, there is a noticeable positive association between income and happiness—in every single survey, those in the highest status group were happier, on the average, than those in the lowest status group. However, whether any such positive association exists among countries at a given time is uncertain. Certainly, the happiness differences between rich and poor countries that one might expect on the basis of the within-country differences by economic status are not borne out by the international data. Similarly, in the one national time series studied, for the United States since 1946, higher income was not systematically accompanied by greater happiness. As for why national comparisons among countries and over time show an association between income and happiness that is so much weaker than, if not inconsistent with, that shown by within-country comparisons, a Duesenberry-type model, involving relative status considerations as an important determinant of happiness, is suggested.