A perspective on well-being: hedonic VS eudaimonic well-being

Since ancient times well-being has been discussed in two broad domains: hedonic and eudaimonic. 

Hedonic well-being is based on the ideas of Aristippus, who proposed that the ultimate aim of all human endeavours and pursuits is pleasure (hedonism). Therefore, hedonic well-being (aka subjective well-being) is a shorter-term evaluation of well-being that balances between positive and negative emotions and between pleasure attainment and pain avoidance. A real-life example of behaviour that leads to hedonic happiness is spending a large amount of money on a designer item to satisfy the need to stay current with fashion trends. According to Keyes et al. (2002), the three aspects of subjective well-being are positive affect (mood), negative affect (mood) and life satisfaction. The most common tools used to measure subjective well-being are the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) by Watson, Clark & Tellegen (1988) and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) by Diener et al. (1985). Subjective well-being has been associated with having a present temporal focus and higher income levels, suggesting it is grounded in physical aspects of life and not the greater goals of self-actualisation.

On the other hand, eudaimonic well-being is based on the philosophy of Aristotle, who argued that humans can only achieve true happiness and flourish by finding meaning and purpose in life (eudaimonia). Thus, eudaimonic well-being (aka psychological well-being) is a longer-term evaluation of well-being that results from engagement with development and challenges in life posed during the search for meaning and self-reflection. An example of an action that leads to eudaimonic happiness is reading philosophical books and learning more about life holistically. According to Keyes et al. (2002), the six aspects of psychological well-being are autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, purpose in life, positive relations with others and self-acceptance. The Scales of Psychological Well-being by Riff (1989) are often used to measure eudaimonic well-being. Recent research shows that psychological well-being is associated with higher levels of self-compassion, mindfulness practices and exposure to natural environments.

Therefore, hedonic and eudaimonic well-being represent distinct perspectives on life. Hedonic well-being is more focused on a person's present emotional state and evaluation of their current life circumstances, whereas eudaimonic well-being takes a longer-term view, considering how well a person is functioning and developing their potential over time. The two different types of well-being also are related to separate life outcomes. Higher subjective well-being is associated with better physical health, longevity and relationship quality; while greater psychological well-being is linked to resilience, continued personal growth and self-actualisation. Whilst perhaps it is impossible to determine which well-being is more beneficial, it is definite that hedonic and eudaimonic well-being are intertwined into our daily lives. 

Written by Aleksandra Lib

Related articles: Motivating the mind / Negligent exercise / Environmental factors and exercise

REFERENCES

Diener, E., & Chan, M. Y. (2011). Happy people live longer: Subjective well-being contributes to health and longevity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 3(1), 1-43. 

Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of personality assessment, 49(1), 71-75.

Howell, A. J., Passmore, H.-A., & Holder, M. D. (2023). Savoring the here and now: The role of temporal focus for well-being. Journal of Positive Psychology, 18(2), 221-236. 

Keyes, C. L., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: the empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of personality and social psychology, 82(6), 1007.

Koo, J., & Park, K. (2022). Does money buy happiness after all? Revisiting the income-wellbeing link. Journal of Happiness Studies, 23(3), 1133-1154.

Mair, C., Jarrett, M., Watson, M., & Jones, P. B. (2022). The impact of nature exposure on psychological well-being: A systematic review. Environmental Research, 208, 112677.

Krieger, T., Hermann, H., Zimmermann, J., & grosse Holtforth, M. (2022). The role of self-compassion in promoting psychological well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 69(4), 380–396.

Ryff, C.D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57, 1069–1081.

Ryff, C. D. (2014). Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 83(1), 10-28. 

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.

Xu, W., Rodriguez, M. C., Zhang, Q., & Liu, X. (2021). Mindfulness and psychological well-being: A longitudinal study. Mindfulness, 12(9), 2154-2164.

Zaheer, Z. O. B. I. A., & Khan, M. A. (2022). Perceived stress, resilience and psychological well-being among university students: The role of optimism as a mediator. Asian Social Studies and Applied Research, 3(1), 55-67.