Reconsidering happiness: the costs of distinguishing between hedonics and eudaimonia

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 Lama

You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of. Albert Camus

And they all lived happily ever after. The Brothers Grimm

Keywords:

• happiness
• the good life
• meaning
• hedonics
• eudaimonia
• subjective well-being
• psychological well-being
• personal expressiveness
• self determination theory
• intrinsic motivation
• Aristotle

Acknowledgements

The contributions of the first two authors to this manuscript were equal. Final order of authorship was determined by an arm wrestling competition. This work was supported by National Institute of Mental Health grant MH-73937 to Todd B. Kashdan. We are grateful to William Breen for his comments on an earlier version.