Now you see it, now you don’t: Solid and subtle differences between Hedonic and Eudaimonic Wellbeing

ABSTRACT

Data from an intensive longitudinal goal intervention study in Norway (N = 138) were used to test the assumption that hedonic (HWB) and eudaimonic (EWB) wellbeing reflect two distinct dimensions of wellbeing. Based on multilevel factor analyses, a path model and hierarchical regression analyses the paper aimed to demonstrate that a basic duality between the two kinds of wellbeing exists. Compared with one-factor models, factor models that separated between HWB and EWB were better able to explain the correlation between the variables. The two factors correlated in the area of .50 to .70. A multitrait-multimethod test revealed acceptable convergent and discriminant validity for HWB and EWB. Furthermore, an experimental manipulation of a daily exercise partly supported discriminant validity. Aside from illuminating the debate with new data, the paper offers a new theoretical perspective. Yet, several essential issues remain to be settled in order to better understand the concept of wellbeing.

KEYWORDS:

• Subjective well-being
• hedonic well-being
• eudaimonic well-being
• interventions
• goal pursuit

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. In the interest of saving time and space, the two last items of the SWLS are often skipped when the scale is used in survey research. According to Diener, a sumscore comprising the three fist items will do fine as an indicator of life satisfaction (Ed Diener, personal communication, 18 November 2013). A growing body of evidence has accumulated to testify Dieners’s recommendation. For instance, in a cross-cultural study involving 42 countries, Vittersø, Røysamb, and Diener (2002) found that the factor loading for the first 3 items were systematically higher than those for the last two. These results were replicated by Oishi (2006), using much larger samples from two countries (USA and China). Oishi extended his analysis to include an item response model, showing that items 4 and 5 of the SWLS had much larger differential item functionings (DIF) than the first three items. In terms of reliability, Lucas and Donnellan (2012) used data from four panel studies to show that single-item life satisfaction measures have acceptable reliability scores. Finally, Cheung and Lucas (2014) used four large samples to demonstrate acceptable validity for a single-item scale, as evaluated against theoretically relevant variables, such as demographics, subjective health, domain satisfaction, the SWLS and affect. Thus, it seems that a brief 3-item version of the SWLS is virtually as good as the five-item scale.