Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
Huta, V. (2015). An overview of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being concepts. In L. Reinecke
& M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Handbook of media use and well-being. Chapter 2. New York:
Routledge. Manuscript accepted for publication on November 11, 2015.
1
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
2
An Overview of Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-being Concepts
This chapter provides an overview of the concepts studied in well-being research, to lay
the groundwork for the research reported in this volume. The material is organized in terms of
well-being “categories” and well-being “contents.” Throughout the chapter, important concepts
are highlighted in bold.
Well-being Categories
As specified in a literature review by Huta and Waterman (2014), the well-being
definitions of different researchers have fallen into four distinct categories:

Orientations. Orientations represent what a person seeks in life and why, and
they include the values, priorities, motives, ideals, and goals that guide the
person’s chosen behaviors (e.g., seeking pleasure, pursuing personal growth).

Behaviors. Behaviors represent the actual activities that the individual engages in
(e.g., attending parties, writing down goals).

Experiences. Experiences represent a person’s momentary or typical subjective
feelings, emotions, and cognitive-affective appraisals (e.g., positive affect, feeling
of meaning).

Functioning. Functioning represents how well a person is doing in life and how
far the person has come, in terms of their abilities, accomplishments, healthy
habits, and healthy long-term functioning (e.g., prioritizing happiness, being
skilled at savouring, being good at self-regulation, achieving maturity).
Roughly speaking, therefore, orientation is what a person seeks, behavior is what a
person does, experience is how well a person feels, and functioning is how well a person does.
The first two categories – orientations and behaviors – represent ways of living, i.e., what a
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
3
person chooses to do in life. The second two categories – experiences and functioning – are
typically treated as well-being outcomes. Given that this book addresses media use and its
effects on well-being outcomes, the remainder of this chapter focuses on experiences and
functioning.
Well-being Contents and the Distinction Between Hedonia and Eudaimonia
Within each well-being category, researchers have studied different aspects or “contents”
of well-being. For example, within the experiences category, the contents have included positive
affect, negative affect, life satisfaction, meaning experience, elevation and inspiration, feelings of
self-connectedness, subjective vitality, and so on.
It is becoming clear that the various well-being contents which have been studied are
neither a random array of highly disparate concepts, nor a set of minor variations on a single
theme. The majority of researchers agree that the contents of well-being fall under two higherorder umbrellas – hedonia and eudaimonia – and that it is important to assess concepts from both
umbrellas (Ryan & Deci, 2001).
This chapter provides an outline of the theoretical and empirical basis of the hedoniceudaimonic distinction, followed by more detailed characterizations of the contents of wellbeing, organized into four sections: hedonic experiences, eudaimonic experiences, hedonic
functioning, and eudaimonic functioning.
Roughly speaking, hedonic contents involve pleasure/enjoyment/satisfaction, and
comfort/painlessness/ease. These variables are associated with contents representing certain
mindsets, including a focus on the self, the present moment, and the tangible, and a focus on
taking and consuming what one needs and wants.
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
4
Definitions of eudaimonic contents have varied more widely. Nevertheless, in a
comprehensive review of psychological definitions of eudaimonia, Huta and Waterman (2014)
found that four contents appeared in most or all definitions: meaning/value/relevance to a
broader context, personal growth/self-realization/maturity, excellence/ethics/quality, and
authenticity/autonomy/integration. These variables are associated with certain mindsets,
including a balance of focusing on the self and others, a balance of focusing on the present and
the future, a tendency to be guided by abstract and big-picture concepts, and a focus on
cultivating and building what one values and envisions. A greater degree of eudaimonia exists if
all these contents are combined (e.g., if a person ensures that their authentic self-expression is
also ethical).
Most researchers believe that people need both hedonia and eudaimonia to flourish, as
discussed below. Hedonia and eudaimonia are not opposites, nor are they mutually exclusive –
they are complementary psychological functions (Huta, 2015a). Furthermore, a person may
derive a hedonic benefit but a eudaimonic loss from an activity, and vice versa. It is therefore
important to assess both hedonic and eudaimonic variables when studying well-being outcomes.
Evidence for the Distinction Between Hedonia and Eudaimonia
A Long Theoretical History
The hedonic-eudaimonic distinction has dominated discussions of well-being for at least
2500 years, beginning with philosophical texts, and continuing in the writings of humanists,
psychoanalysts, and psychology researchers.
The term eudaimonia was popularized by Aristotle in the 4th century BCE. He was the
first to write at length about the hedonic-eudaimonic distinction, in his essay called the
Nicomachean Ethics (see The Basic Works of Aristotle, 2001). Aristotle rejected hedonic
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
5
pursuits, equating them with the behavior of lowly animals, and argued that a good life should be
defined as eudaimonia, which is action in accordance with virtue and reason.
Aristotle is often contrasted with Aristippus, who also lived in the 4th century BCE, and
whose perspective was particularly far in the hedonic direction. Aristippus taught that pleasure is
the only good in life and pain the only evil, regardless of how the pleasure or pain is produced.
Various philosophers throughout history have sided with either the hedonic view or the
eudaimonic view. Philosophers whose work was more aligned with hedonic principles included
Hobbes, Bentham, and recently Onfray (2013). Philosophers whose work was more aligned with
eudaimonic principles included Plato, Zeno of Citium, Marcus Aurelius, Kant, and recently
Annas (1993), Kraut (2007), Norton (1976), and Tiberius (2013).
In the writings of psychoanalysts, humanists, and early psychologists, we find the
distinction between Freud’s (1920) pleasure principle on the one hand, and Jung’s (1933)
individuation, Maslow’s (1970) self-actualization, and Allport’s (1955) maturity on the other.
In psychology research, as shown in a review by Ryan and Deci (2001), conceptions of
well-being can again be classified as hedonic or eudaimonic. There are some researchers who
espouse only a hedonic perspective (e.g., Kahneman, 1999) or only a eudaimonic perspective
(e.g., Ryff, 1989). However, most well-being researchers believe that a combination of both
hedonia and eudaimonia is needed for an optimal existence, a combination which Keyes (2002)
has termed “flourishing” and Seligman (2002) has termed the “full life.”
Factor Analytic Evidence for the Hedonic-Eudaimonic Distinction
Essential empirical support for the theoretical distinction between hedonic and
eudaimonic outcomes would be provided by factor analyses of diverse well-being experiences,
performed at the trait level and again at the state level. Ironically, such an analysis has yet to be
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
6
published. (Note that parallel factor analyses on measures of functioning cannot be performed,
as researchers have only developed measures of eudaimonic functioning, and not measures of
hedonic functioning.)
I have therefore reanalyzed, with Principal Components Analysis, the 7 studies of mine
where I assessed at least 6 of the following 8 well-being experiences at the trait level: positive
affect, negative affect, life satisfaction, carefreeness, meaning, elevation, self-connectedness, and
vitality. The findings were reported in Huta (2014), and more details about the individual traitlevel studies can be found in Huta (2013a). In 6 of the 7 studies, there were 2 eigenvalues above
1; in the remaining study, 1 eigenvalue was above 1. Two-factor solutions were obtained in all
the data sets, and the solutions were Varimax rotated. The pattern of loadings was fairly
consistent from study to study. Mean loadings across the 7 studies are shown in the trait section
of Table 1.
I have similarly reanalyzed, for the purpose of this chapter, the 3 studies where I assessed
at least 6 of the following 7 well-being experiences at the state level: positive affect, negative
affect, carefreeness, meaning, elevation, self-connectedness, and vitality (I did not assess life
satisfaction at the state level, as I considered it to be a trait-level variable). In one state level
study, orientations and experiences were assessed at a given moment, multiple times per day; in
a second study, they were assessed at a given bedtime as a summary of that day, for multiple
days; and in the third study, they were assessed once a week as a summary of the previous week,
for multiple weeks. More details about these state-level studies appear in Huta (2013a). In all 3
studies, there were 2 eigenvalues above 1, and despite differences in time span, all three studies
had a similar pattern of loadings. Mean loadings across the three studies are shown in the state
section of Table 1.
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
7
Table 1.
Mean Factor Loadings of Well-being Experiences Across 7 Past Trait Level Studies and 3 Past
State Level Studies
Trait Level (7 studies)
State Level (3 studies)
Eudaimonic
Hedonic
Eudaimonic
Hedonic
Elevation (Huta & Ryan, 2010)
.08
.23
.84
.79
Meaning (Huta & Ryan, 2010)
.22
.05
.79
.78
Self-connectedness (Huta, 2012)
.19
.20
.76
.84
Negative Affect (Diener & Emmons, 1984)
-.07
.01
-.81
-.85
Carefreeness (Huta & Ryan, 2010)
.13
.34
.76
.76
Positive Affect (Diener & Emmons, 1984)
.46
.55
.64
.76
Vitality (Ryan, & Frederick, 1997)
.61
.58
.63
.49
Life Satisfaction (Diener, Emmons, et al., 1985)
--.47
.58
Note. The references cited in his table refer to the authors who developed the measures used in the studies
summarized. Primary loadings, as well as secondary loadings that are similar in magnitude to the primary loadings,
are in bold. Trait-level studies had sample sizes n = 102-2094; state-level studies had sample sizes n = 34-113.
I am also currently conducting a large study which includes additional trait-level wellbeing experiences to further test the distinction between hedonia and eudaimonia. As reported in
Huta (2015b), Principal Components Analysis was performed on the first 677 participants,
thereby providing preliminary but large-sample findings. Four factors had eigenvalues above 1.
Following Varimax rotation, the loadings were as shown in Table 2.
Table 2.
Factor Loadings of Well-being Experiences: Preliminary Findings (n=677) from an Ongoing
Trait Level Study
Eudaimonic
Meaning (Kern & Butler, 2013)
Accomplishment (Kern & Butler, 2013)
Meaning (Steger, Frazier, Oishi, & Kaler, 2006)
Meaning (Huta & Ryan, 2010)
Self-connectedness (Huta, 2012)
Elevation (Huta & Ryan, 2010)
Interest (Vittersø, Dyrdal, & Røysamb, 2005)
Engagement (Kern & Butler, 2013)
Flow – single-item (Delle Fave & Massimini, 1988)
Flow – multi-item (Delle Fave & Massimini, 1988)
Carefreeness (Huta & Ryan, 2010)
Pleasure (Vittersø, Dyrdal, & Røysamb, 2005)
Positive Affect (Diener & Emmons, 1984)
Positive Emotions (Kern & Butler, 2013)
Positive Experience (Diener, et al., 2009)
.76
.71
.70
.69
.63
.59
.57
.54
.47
.40
.15
.38
.36
.36
.25
Positive
Hedonic
.18
.18
.15
.31
.28
.48
.53
.20
.28
.10
.78
.74
.74
.66
.66
Low Negative
Hedonic,
Need Satisfaction
.41
.35
.28
.12
.28
-.04
.19
.14
.01
.53
.12
.39
.37
.34
.39
Personal
Expressiveness
.05
.03
.12
.28
.21
.27
.17
.12
-.06
.13
.09
.17
.17
.07
.08
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
8
Emotional Well-Being (Keyes, 2002)
.26
.04
.49
.38
Positive Affect (Bradburn, 1969)
.23
.17
.47
.48
Negative Affect (Bradburn, 1969)
-.15
-.06
-.04
-.82
Negative Affect (Diener & Emmons, 1984)
-.05
-.28
.01
-.80
Negative Experience (Diener et al., 2009)
-.03
-.33
.03
-.72
Competence (Gagné, 2003)
.36
.21
.07
.65
Relatedness (Gagné, 2003)
.32
.23
.07
.64
Relatedness (Kern & Butler, 2013)
.29
-.01
.48
.48
Autonomy (Gagné, 2003)
.33
.25
-.03
.48
Vitality (Ryan, & Frederick, 1997)
.28
.20
.44
.59
Life Satisfaction (Diener et al., 1985)
.04
.48
.38
.44
Hedonic Enjoyment (Waterman, 1993)
.14
.15
.04
.94
Personal Expressiveness (Waterman, 1993)
.19
.15
.01
.93
Note. Primary loadings, as well as secondary loadings that are similar in magnitude to the primary loadings, are in
bold. Sample size was n = 677.
Several conclusions can tentatively be drawn from Tables 1 and 2:

There were clearly distinct “flavours” of well-being experience.

Feelings of meaning, self-connectedness, elevation, accomplishment, and
interest/engagement/flow represented one type of experience, which can be called
eudaimonic.

Feelings of carefreeness, positive affect, and low negative affect represented a different
kind of feeling, which can be called hedonic. Note, however, that positive affect also
sometimes had substantial secondary links with eudaimonic concepts.

Life satisfaction and subjective vitality (feeling intensely alive) related to both hedonic
and eudaimonic variables.

Feelings of need satisfaction – including needs for relatedness, autonomy, and
competence – formed a distinct factor from eudaimonic concepts and positive hedonic
concepts, but loaded together with low negative affect. More research is needed to
confirm the place of need satisfaction, but this analysis tentatively suggested a link
between need thwarting and negative emotions.
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA

9
Personal expressiveness (a feeling of deep connection with the important activities in a
person’s life) has been proposed as a eudaimonic concept, but it formed a separate factor
in the analysis, along with “hedonic enjoyment.” This may be due to differences in
methodology rather than content. These two measures instructed participants to first list
the activities of greatest importance to them and then rate how personally expressive and
hedonically enjoyable they found each activity. This differed from the other measures
analyzed, which simply instructed participants to rate themselves in general.
Factor analyses of well-being orientations have similarly shown that the hedonic pursuit
of pleasure and comfort differs from the eudaimonic pursuit of concerns such as authenticity,
meaning, excellence, and growth (Huta & Ryan, 2010; Peterson, Park, & Seligman, 2005). Note,
however, that the place of engagement remains unclear. In my factor analyses of orientation
measures in the first 677 participants of the large study, the pursuit of engagement and
challenge was distinct from the pursuit of authenticity, meaning, excellence, and growth when
analyzing individual items, but not when analyzing whole scales (Huta, 2014). Other researchers
have sometimes found that an engagement orientation and a eudaimonic orientation loaded on
separate factors (Peterson et al., 2005), and sometimes found that they loaded on the same factor
(Anić, 2014).
Proposed Biological Basis of the Hedonic-Eudaimonic Distinction
Steger and Shin (2012) have proposed a biological basis for the difference between
hedonia (which they termed pleasure) and eudaimonia (which they termed mattering). They
asserted that pleasure processes are based on the “hot” systems of the brain, while mattering
processes are based on the “cold” systems. They defined “hot” systems as the older and simpler
subcortical structures that humans share with other animals, which are designed to provide
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
10
immediate subjective feelings of pleasure or pain to quickly evaluate safety and welfare.
According to the authors, cold systems exist in the more recently evolved cerebral cortex, which
is especially well-developed in humans, and they allow a person to engage in self-reflection,
deliberation, and evaluation of things from perspectives that are abstract, value-based, and longterm.
Vittersø, Dyrdal, and Røysamb (2005) have proposed that hedonic processes may be
associated with endogenous opioids in the brain, which are involved in pleasure and regulation
of homeostatic processes, while the eudaimonic pursuit of challenge and growth may be
associated with the dopamine system, which is involved in interest and novelty-seeking.
Both Hedonia and Eudaimonia are Needed
Increasingly, well-being researchers are assessing both hedonia and eudaimonia, for a
number of reasons.
First, people who pursue both hedonia and eudaimonia have higher degrees of wellbeing than people who pursue only one or the other (Anić & Tončić, 2013; Huta & Ryan, 2010;
Peterson et al., 2005). And people who score high on both hedonic and eudaimonic outcomes
have higher degrees of mental health than other individuals (Keyes, 2002).
Second, people who pursue both hedonia and eudaimonia have more well-rounded wellbeing than people who pursue only one or the other, because hedonia and eudaimonia fill
somewhat different well-being niches. The pursuit of hedonia tends to be more linked with
feelings of carefreeness, positive affect (at the state level), and low negative affect (at the state
level), while the pursuit of eudaimonia tends to be more linked with feelings of meaning,
elevation (at the trait level), and self-connectedness (Huta, 2013a). There is also some evidence
to suggest that hedonic pursuits are associated with greater immediate well-being, while
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
11
eudaimonic pursuits are associated with greater long-term well-being (Huta & Ryan, 2010;
Steger et al., 2008). Furthermore, the pursuit of hedonia is mainly associated with personal wellbeing (e.g., Huta & Ryan, 2010; Peterson et al., 2005), while the pursuit of eudaimonia is
associated with both personal well-being and a tendency to foster well-being in others (Huta,
2012; Huta, Pelletier, Baxter, & Thompson, 2012; Pearce, Huta, & Voloaca, 2015).
Third, assessing only hedonic or only eudaimonic outcomes can lead to biased
conclusions. For example, assessing only hedonic outcomes and ignoring eudaimonic outcomes
can give the false impression that people derive little well-being from things such as proenvironmental behavior, interdependent self-construal, honesty, or the moment when they are
engaged in a eudaimonic activity (Huta, 2014). It is also reasonable to assume that people can
sometimes experience a hedonic benefit at the cost of a eudaimonic loss, or vice versa, e.g.,
when short-term fun impairs long-term relationships, or when progress on a project leads to loss
of relaxation time.
Thus, unlike past theoretical scholars, most psychology researchers do not side with one
camp or the other, but rather believe that both hedonia and eudaimonia are important.
Both Hedonia and Eudaimonia can be Taken to Excess
This chapter focuses on the healthy forms of hedonia and eudaimonia, but it should be
noted that each process can have a dark side too. Hedonia might derail into addiction, chronic
escapism, destructive impulsivity, selfishness, antisocial behavior, greed, excessive
consumerism, and so on. Eudaimonia might derail into a workaholic lifestyle, exhaustion,
excessive self-sacrifice, overthinking things, excessive theorizing and loss of practicality, losing
touch with one’s body, paralyzing existential angst, and so on. I believe that hedonia strays into
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
12
unhealthy territory when it is not reined in by at least a bit of eudaimonia, and vice versa, though
this hypothesis has yet to be tested.
The Contents of Hedonic and Eudaimonic Experiences and Functioning
Below is a listing of the various contents (i.e., variables) that have been associated with
hedonia or eudaimonia, organized into four sections – hedonic experiences, eudaimonic
experiences, hedonic functioning, and eudaimonic functioning. The overview is meant to be
telegraphic to aid the reader in quickly developing a bird’s eye view of the hedonic-eudaimonic
distinction. A general term for each type of content is listed as a heading (e.g., positive affect),
and this is followed by a list of associated concepts (e.g., positive affect, positive affect balance,
emotional well-being, hedonic enjoyment, etc.). Only one or two key references are cited for
each concept; references to empirical support focus largely on correlates of hedonic and
eudaimonic orientations, the category where I think the hedonic-eudaimonic distinction is
clearest (Huta, 2015a). Further comments are added only where I feel they are essential. Reviews
that expand in more detail on elements of hedonia and eudaimonia can be found in Haybron,
2008; Huta, 2013b, 2015a; Keyes & Annas, 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2001; Steger & Shin, 2012.
One of my main interests is to develop an integrated understanding of the hedoniceudaimonic distinction, and this chapter has the most complete listing of contents I have
developed to date, though it is always a work in progress. In addition, for the first time, this
chapter outlines what hedonic functioning might look like, as this set of variables has been
missing from the literature – the focus has been on eudaimonic functioning only.
Note that it is rare for a given variable to be purely hedonic or purely eudaimonic, and
that hedonia is typically accompanied by some degree of eudaimonic process, and vice versa.
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
13
Also, well-being concepts vary in the degree to which they lean towards hedonia or eudaimonia,
with some leaning strongly in one direction and others leaning only somewhat in one direction.
Hedonic Experiences
Positive affect. Associated concepts: positive affect (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith,
1999); positive affect balance (Bradburn, 1969; Ryff, 1989); emotional well-being (Keyes,
2002); hedonic enjoyment (Waterman, 1993); pleasure, joyfulness, enjoyment, fun (Diener &
Emmons, 1984).
Positive affect is one of the most commonly used measures of well-being, the other being
life satisfaction. When obtaining one-factor solutions with only the hedonic measures in the
studies in Tables 1 (positive affect, negative affect, carefreeness) and with these same measures
in the study in Table 2, positive affect accounted for about 75% of the variance in the common
“hedonic factor” (even when life satisfaction was added to the analysis). This suggests that
positive affect alone can serve as a good proxy for hedonic experience.
Note that positive affect has been linked much more to a hedonic orientation at the state
level, but has had similar links with hedonic and eudaimonic orientations at the trait level (Huta,
2013a; Henderson, Knight, & Richardson, 2013; Vella-Brodrick, Park, & Peterson, 2009). The
factor analyses in Tables 1 and 2 suggest a similar pattern. Overall, therefore, one might say that
positive affect has a primary relationship with hedonia but also a substantial secondary
relationship with eudaimonia.
Satisfaction. Associated concepts: satisfaction (Heathwood, 2006); feeling that personal
wants and needs are met (Waterman, 1993); feeling that homeostasis is achieved (Vittersø &
Søholt, 2011); replenishment, feeling well stocked up (Huta, 2015a); release of tension between
how things are and how one would like them to be.
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
14
Satisfaction seems to be more often understood as hedonic satisfaction – fulfilling
physical/emotional needs and wants – and thus is classified in this section. Nevertheless,
eudaimonic satisfaction – fulfilling cognitive/value-based goals and standards – exists as well.
In addition, satisfaction is related to life satisfaction (which is more cognitive and global, and
thus appears in the section on experiences that are both hedonic and eudaimonic), and to feelings
of psychological need satisfaction (which are often construed as markers that important needs
are met rather than ends in themselves, and thus appear in a separate section).
Carefreeness. Associated concepts: carefreeness (Huta & Ryan, 2010).
This feeling has been especially strongly linked to a hedonic orientation (Henderson et
al., 2013; Huta, 2013a). Carefreeness likely derives from the hedonic focus on the here and now,
and thus represents an emotional and cognitive disconnection from ongoing or broad concerns.
Low negative affect. Associated concepts: low levels of negative affect, emotional pain,
depression, anxiety, stress, strain (Diener at al., 1999; Fowers, Molica, & Procacci 2010); high
levels of comfort, relaxation, ease (Huta & Ryan, 2010).
When well-being has been assessed using more than one variable, researchers have most
commonly used the three elements of what Diener termed subjective well-being – positive
affect, life satisfaction, and low negative affect. After reviewing three decades of research on
subjective well-being, Diener and colleagues (1999) concluded that negative affect should be
assessed separately from positive affect, especially at the trait level where they can sometimes
coexist.
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
15
Negative affect has been linked much more to a hedonic orientation at the state level, but
had weak or no links with hedonic and eudaimonic orientations at the trait level (Huta, 2013a;
Henderson et al., 2013; Vella-Brodrick et al., 2009).
Experiences Reflecting Need Satisfaction
Feelings of psychological need satisfaction loaded with low negative affect in Table 2,
but they are really somewhat distinct from other well-being outcomes, as these feelings are not
seen as ends in themselves but rather as markers that a psychological need has been satisfied.
Thus, experiences of need satisfaction appear here in a section of their own.
Feeling related. Associated concepts: relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000); relationships
(Seligman, 2011); love (Fredrickson, 2013).
We are such highly social animals that an assessment of relatedness (as an experience or
as functioning) appears in the majority of well-being “short-lists.”
While most measures of relatedness have focused on relatedness to other people, some
researchers are beginning to argue that the experience of relatedness extends beyond the social
realm, and can include feelings of connectedness with animals, nature, the divine, and so on
(Dambrun & Ricard, 2011; Leary, Tipsord, & Tate, 2008).
Feeling autonomous. Associated concepts: autonomy, feeling free to be oneself and
make one’s own choices (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Feeling competent. Associated concepts: competence (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Of the three need satisfaction experiences posited by Self-Determination Theory (Deci &
Ryan, 2000) – autonomy, competence, and relatedness – all three have been linked to both
hedonic and eudaimonic orientations, but the experience of competence has been more strongly
linked to a eudaimonic orientation than to a hedonic one (Mack et al., 2011).
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
16
Other needs. The feelings of relatedness, competence, and autonomy are the need
satisfaction variables that have received the most empirical attention, but other psychological
needs have also been proposed, including a need for meaning (Andersen, Chen, & Carter, 2000;
Frankl, 1988), a need for safety and security (Kasser, 2009), and a need for esteem (Maslow,
1968).
Note that relatedness, competence, and autonomy have been defined by some researchers
as functioning that is assumed to belong specifically to eudaimonia, and thus variations on these
three concepts appear again in the eudaimonic functioning section.
Eudaimonic Experiences
Meaning experience. Associated concepts: feelings of meaning, value, resonance,
purpose, broad implications (Huta & Ryan, 2010; Huta, 2015c); feelings of meaning and purpose
(Steger, 2012); meaningfulness (Delle Fave, Brdar, Freire, Vella-Brodrick, & Wissing, 2011a).
A eudaimonic orientation and eudaimonic behavior have been linked with feelings of
meaning and purpose (Henderson et al., 2013; Huta, 2013a; Steger et al., 2008).
Most scholars would agree that, if there is a single eudaimonic outcome to be measured,
it should be meaning. Meaning has repeatedly been used as a proxy for all things eudaimonic
(e.g., Baumeister, Vohs, Aaker, & Garbinsky, 2013; Delle Fave et al., 2011a; King & Napa,
1998). I have argued that the assessment of well-being experience should include at minimum
the following “Big Four”: positive affect, life satisfaction, low negative affect, and meaning
(Huta, 2013a). When obtaining one-factor solutions with only the eudaimonic variables in the
studies in Table 1 (meaning, elevation, and self-connectedness), meaning tended to account for
about 70% of the variance in the common “eudaimonic factor.” This remained true when
analyzing the same three measures in the study in Table 2, even when one of the other meaning
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
17
measures was used instead, and even when the measure of accomplishment and any one of the
measures of engagement was added to the analysis. This suggests that meaning alone can serve
as a good proxy for eudaimonic experience.
Elevation. Associated concepts: moral elevation (Haidt, 2000); peak experience
(Maslow, 1970); elevation (Huta & Ryan, 2010); awe (Keltner & Haidt, 2003); inspiration
(Thrash & Elliot, 2003); transcendence or sense of connection with a greater whole
(Csikszentmihalyi, 2000); peak experience (Maslow, 1964); spiritual transcendence (Piedmont,
1999); aesthetic experience (Konečni, 2005); heightened awareness and clarity.
A eudaimonic orientation has been linked with feelings of elevation (which include moral
elevation, awe, inspiration, and transcendence) (Henderson et al., 2013; Huta, 2013a).
Feeling integrated. Associated concepts: self-connectedness (Huta, 2012); authenticity
(Schlegel, Hicks, King, & Arndt, 2011); feeling right and centered (Norton, 1976).
A eudaimonic orientation has been linked with feelings of self-connectedness (Huta,
2013a).
Personal expressiveness. Associated concepts: personal expressiveness, exceptional
personal fit with one’s activities (Waterman, 1993).
The concept of personal expressiveness is listed here as a eudaimonic experience based
on theory and findings showing that self-realization values (a eudaimonic concept) are associated
significantly more with personal expressiveness than with hedonic enjoyment (Waterman, 1993;
Waterman, Schwartz, & Conti, 2008).
Feeling of accomplishment. Associated concepts: accomplishment (Seligman, 2011);
authentic pride (as opposed to hubristic pride, Tracy & Robins, 2007).
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
18
Feeling of engagement. Associated concepts: interest (Vittersø & Søholt, 2011);
engagement (Seligman, 2011); flow, immersion (Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).
Experiences That are Both Hedonic and Eudaimonic
Life satisfaction and domain satisfaction. Associated concepts: life satisfaction
(Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985); domain satisfaction, e.g., satisfaction with one’s
work, leisure, social relationships, family, finances (Diener et al., 1999).
There is much controversy regarding the place of life satisfaction, with perhaps half the
research community arguing that it is a hedonic concept (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2001; Vittersø &
Søholt, 2011), the other half arguing that it is the final common outcome of both hedonic and
eudaimonic considerations (e.g., Sheldon, 2013; Waterman, 2007), and a small minority arguing
that it is in fact a eudaimonic concept (Sumner, 1996). I have come to believe that the degree to
which a “satisfaction” scale reflects hedonia depends very much on the wording of the items. To
the degree that the wording refers to “getting” what one wants and needs, satisfaction is a
hedonic concept, as hedonia is about taking for oneself. To the degree that the wording refers to
“behaving” in congruence with one’s values and true self, and progressing towards eudaimonic
goals, life satisfaction is a eudaimonic concept. And to the degree that the wording is very
global, or reflects both getting things and living and progressing in the ways one values, life
satisfaction is a summary of both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. The most commonly used
measure of life satisfaction, the Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, &
Griffin, 1985), has items touching on all three of the above possibilities: hedonic – “So far I have
gotten the important things I want in life”; eudaimonic – “If I could live my life over, I would
change almost nothing”; and global – “I am satisfied with life.” This may explain why the scale
has related similarly to hedonic and eudaimonic orientations (e.g., Huta & Ryan, 2010;
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
19
Henderson et al., 2013; Peterson, Ruch, Beerman, Park, & Seligman, 2007). Based on these
findings, “life” satisfaction is not listed with hedonia but rather in this section for variables
related to both hedonia and eudaimonia.
When researchers have assessed well-being using a single concept, they have most often
assessed life satisfaction. I feel that as long as a life satisfaction measure is worded globally, or
has items reflecting both hedonic and eudaimonic concepts, it can be a reasonable proxy for
well-being in general. When forcing one-factor solutions in the studies in Tables 1 and 2 and
when including all of the variables, I found that life satisfaction accounted for about 50% of the
variance represented by the single “overall well-being” factor representing both hedonia and
eudaimonia, which was substantial. It is worth noting, though, that it was positive affect which
tended to load highest in the one-factor solutions, and it accounted for about 70% of the variance
in the overall well-being factor. Empirically, therefore, positive affect was the strongest single
representative of overall well-being.
Happiness. Associated concepts: subjective happiness (Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999).
Conceptually, the term happiness tends to be used in one of two ways: as a global
assessment of all aspects of well-being (feeling “happy about” things), or as a description of the
hedonic state of feeling good (simply feeling “happy”). Empirically, Schueller and Seligman
(2011) found that happiness related to both hedonic and eudaimonic orientations, and somewhat
more to a eudaimonic orientation. Thus, on average, happiness likely deserves to be grouped
with outcomes reflecting both hedonia and eudaimonia.
Vitality. Associated concepts: subjective vitality, feeling alive and energized (Ryan &
Frederick, 1997).
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
20
Vitality was originally theorized to belong with eudaimonia (Ryan & Deci, 2001), but
empirically it has related similarly to hedonic and eudaimonic orientations (Henderson et al.,
2013; Huta, 2013a).
Functioning as an Outcome
Eudaimonic functioning has largely been championed by Ryff (1989), whose definition is
referred to as psychological well-being and consists of six concepts: personal growth, purpose in
life, environmental mastery, autonomy/non-conformism, positive relationships with others, and
self-acceptance (see also Ryff & Singer, 2008). Additional concepts in the eudaimonic
functioning category have included, among others, self-regulation, ethics, contribution, and
thoughtfulness, as detailed below.
Variables reflecting hedonic functioning have certainly been studied – for example, in
Fordyce’s (1983) 14 fundamentals of happiness, several fundamentals are largely hedonic in
nature: making happiness a high priority, taking care of oneself, not worrying needlessly, and
focusing on the present. However, no explicit and coherent conception of hedonic functioning
exists, one that proposes things that hedonically oriented people are especially good at. For the
purpose of this chapter, and for furthering my own research, I have developed a conception of
what hedonic functioning might look like.
Hedonic Functioning
Savouring and playfulness. Associated concepts: making happiness a high priority
(Fordyce, 1983); ability to savour, which includes luxuriating, basking, marvelling, and
thanksgiving (Bryant & Veroff, 2007); playfulness and humour (Ruch, Proyer, & Weber, 2010).
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
21
A hedonic orientation has been linked to the character strength of playfulness/humour
and to the extraversion facet of excitement-seeking (Buschor, Proyer, & Ruch, 2013; Huta,
2013a; Peterson et al., 2007; Ruch et al., 2010).
Note that thanksgiving is included under hedonic functioning for now, because it was
theoretically grouped with savouring by Bryant and Veroff (2007), but it may prove to have at
least as strong a link with eudaimonia, given the link between eudaimonia and appreciation
(Huta & Ryan, 2010). Gratitude/thanksgiving is therefore listed again in the section on
functioning that reflects both hedonia and eudaimonia.
Sensuality. Associated concepts: sensuality, sexuality, passion, spirit, immersion in
physical experiences and activities, being in touch with one’s body, being in touch with one’s
primal side.
The concept of sensuality overlaps with the physical component of savouring that is
referred to as luxuriating, but involves not only appreciating physicality but also expressing and
identifying with physicality.
Light-heartedness. Associated concepts: not worrying needlessly (Fordyce, 1983);
carefreeness as an ability, light-heartedness, ability to not take things too seriously, capacity to
let go and take a break.
A carefree state of mind has been linked with a hedonic orientation not only at the state
level but also at the trait level (Huta & Ryan, 2010; Huta 2013a). The frequent trait-level
experience of carefreeness may stem from a heightened ability to let go (i.e., from carefreeness
as functioning).
Spontaneity and living in the here and now. Associated concepts: focusing on the
present (Fordyce, 1983); present hedonistic time perspective (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999);
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
22
spontaneity, healthy impulsivity, direct doing without overthinking, ability to go with the flow of
the moment, ability to live in the moment and disengage from ongoing concerns and context,
ability to break away to come back with a fresh perspective.
A hedonic orientation has been linked to a time perspective that is focused primarily on
the present (Pearce et al., 2015).
Healthy selfishness. Associated concepts: taking care of oneself (Fordyce, 1983);
healthy selfishness, ability to take what one needs and wants, ability to stock up on personal
energy, ability to put oneself first when warranted, assertiveness to take one’s share, knowing
when to reward oneself, ability to indulge fully without guilt.
A hedonic orientation has been related to primarily focusing on the self rather than on
others or the surrounding world (Pearce et al., 2015).
Efficacy and homeostasis. Associated concepts: efficacy (McGregor & Little, 1998);
homeostasis (Vitterso & Søholt, 2011); minimizing unnecessary difficulty, effort, and
discomfort.
Vittersø and Søholt (2011) asserted that the hedonic feelings of satisfaction and pleasure
mark the achievement of homeostasis. Also, McGregor and Little (1998) found that people
whose self-identity was focused on fun/enjoyment/pleasure had personal projects that were high
in efficacy (i.e., high in control over outcomes, and likelihood of success, and low in difficulty,
stress, challenge, and time-pressure).
Concreteness. Associated concepts: concreteness, practicality.
A hedonic orientation has been positively associated with materialism, but unassociated
with abstract thinking (i.e., perceiving activities in terms of their big picture implications rather
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
23
than their mechanics) (Huta, 2013a; Pearce et al., 2015). An appreciation of the concrete may
translate into practicality and facility in interacting with material things.
Eudaimonic Functioning
Personal growth. Personal growth can be separated into multiple components: personal
actualization (i.e., developing potentials unique to the self), maturity and sophistication (i.e.,
fulfilling potentials common to all people), learning, competence and excellence, and
accomplishment and progress.
Concepts associated with personal actualization: self-realization, development of one’s
best potentials (Waterman & Schwartz, 2013); identity achievement (Waterman, 2007); meeting
one’s personal destiny (Norton, 1976); finding a calling (Wrzesniewski, McCaulay, Rozin, &
Schwartz, 1997); finding one’s bliss (Campbell & Moyers, 1988); individuation (Jung, 1933);
regularly using one’s signature strengths (Seligman, 2002); coming into one’s own, becoming all
that one can be.
A eudaimonic orientation has been linked to vocational identity achievement (Hirschi,
2011) and to having a calling (Braaten,Thompson, & Huta., 2014).
Concepts associated with maturity and sophistication: personal growth (Ryff, 1989);
the self-actualized person (Maslow, 1970); maturity (Allport, 1955); high level of ego
development (Bauer, McAdams, & Pals, 2008; Loevinger, 1966); development of a quiet ego
that is sophisticated, complex, subtle, deep, and refined (Bauer, 2008); ego integrity (Erikson,
1950); wisdom (Baltes & Staudinger, 2000).
A eudaimonic orientation has been linked to the character strength of wisdom (Buschor et
al., 2013; Peterson et al., 2007).
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
24
Concepts associated with achieving competence and excellence: environmental mastery
(Ryff, 1989); excellence in performance (Orlick, 1990); competence, skill, knowledge,
understanding, awareness, insight, appreciation, experience, producing quality products.
Concepts associated with accomplishment and progress: accomplishment (Seligman,
2011); progress.
A eudaimonic orientation has been linked to career success (Proyer et al., 2012).
Achieving meaning and purpose. Associated concepts: purpose, understanding, and
responsible action (Wong, 2010); meaning in life (Steger, Shin, Shim, & Fitch-Martin, 2013);
will to meaning (Frankl, 1988); purpose in life (Ryff, 1989); sense of coherence (Antonovsky,
1993); having a framework for understanding life (Debats, 1998); a meaningful life of serving a
higher purpose (Seligman, 2002); spirituality and religiousness (Emmons, 2003); selftranscendence (Garcia-Romeau, 2010).
A eudaimonic orientation has been linked to meaning in life, having a framework for
understanding life (Huta, 2013a), a meaningful life of serving a higher purpose (Pearce et al.,
2015), and religiosity (Buschor et al., 2013; Peterson et al., 2007).
Being authentic and integrated. Associated concepts: having autonomous motives
(Deci & Ryan, 2000); coherence, congruence, and intrinsic goal content (Sheldon & Kasser,
1995); autonomy and non-conformism (Ryff, 1989); authenticity (Fordyce, 1983); integrity
(McGregor & Little, 1998); constitutive goals (Fowers et al., 2010).
A eudaimonic orientation has been linked to autonomous motives and intrinsic goal
content (Anić & Tončić, 2013; Huta, 2013a).
Ethics. Associated concepts: virtue (Fowers, 2008); high level of moral development
(Kohlberg, 1984); honesty (Peterson & Seligman, 2004); high standards, doing the right thing.
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
25
A eudaimonic orientation has been associated with honesty/integrity and with
fairness/justice (Buschor et al., 2013; Peterson et al., 2007).
Contribution. Associated concepts: social contribution (Keyes, 2002); generativity,
having left something behind, having made a difference (Erikson, 1950; McAdams & de St.
Aubin, 1998); symbolic immortality (Huta & Zuroff, 2007); civic engagement (Sherrod, TorneyPurta, & Flanagan, 2010); random acts of kindness (Otake, Shimai, Tanaka-Matsumi, Otsui, &
Fredrickson, 2006); altruism (Batson, 1991; Kurzban, Burton-Chellew, & West, 2015);
transcending self-interest (Bauer, 2008); responsibility (Frankl, 1988); standing up for what one
believes in.
A eudaimonic orientation has been associated with a positive impact on close friends and
relatives (Huta, 2012; Huta et al., 2012), altruistic behavior, generativity, and pro-environmental
behavior (Pearce et al., 2015), and kindness/generosity and leadership (Buschor et al., 2013;
Peterson et al., 2007).
Self-regulation. Associated concepts: perseverance and grit (Duckworth, Peterson,
Matthews, & Kelly, 2007); self-regulation (Maddux, 2009); delay of gratification (Mischel,
Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1989); commitment (Waterman & Schwartz, 2013); planning and
organizing (Fordyce, 1983).
A eudaimonic orientation has been linked to self-regulation (Buschor et al., 2013
Peterson et al., 2007), self-control (Anić & Tončić, 2013), and perseverance (Peterson et al.,
2007). In addition, a genetic twin study suggested that a key ability underlying Ryff’s (1989)
psychological well-being variables was self-control (Archontaki, Lewis, & Bates, 2013).
Abstract thinking and thoughtfulness. Associated concepts: trait mindfulness (Baer,
Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer, & Tonry, 2006; Ryan, Huta, & Deci, 2008); high-level action
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
26
identification and abstract thinking (Vallacher & Wegner, 1987); distant temporal construal
(Liberman & Trope, 1998); balanced time perspective with integration of the future and the past,
future time perspective (Boniwell & Zimbardo, 2004; Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999); ego
development that includes self-awareness, perspective-taking, consideration of long-term
consequences, and abstract thinking (Bauer, Schwab, & McAdams, 2011); judgment (Peterson &
Seligman, 2004).
A eudaimonic orientation has been associated with characteristics reflecting introversion,
including introspectiveness, enjoyment of solitude, and a focus on thoughts and ideas (Huta,
2013a), with abstract thinking and future time perspective (Pearce et al., 2015), and with the
character strength of judgment (Buschor et al., 2013; Peterson et al., 2007). It is also worth
noting that Aristotle considered contemplation to be the highest form of eudaimonia.
Quality relationships. Associated concepts: positive relations with others (Ryff, 1989);
social well-being (Keyes, 2002); collaborative relationships (Fowers, 2012); relatedness
(Fordyce, 1983); belonging (Maslow, 1968).
Resilience and constructively facing challenges. Associated concepts: resilience,
hardiness, post-traumatic growth, active coping strategies (Bonanno, Galea, Bucciarelli, &
Vlahov, 2007; Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989; Reich, Zautra, & Hall, 2009; Calhoun &
Tedeschi, 2004); welcoming challenges (Vittersø, Oelmann, & Wang, 2009); growth mindset
(Dweck, 2006); autotelic personality, psychological selection, and seeking challenges
(Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Delle Fave, Massimini, & Bassi, 2011b).
A eudaimonic orientation has been linked to enjoying work (Huta, 2013a), being satisfied
with one’s work (Proyer, Annen, Eggimann, Schneider, & Ruch, 2012), and love of learning
(Buschor et al., 2013).
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
27
Resilience is placed with eudaimonia because it often involves effort and grit, but note
that resilience has links with hedonia as well. For example, positive emotions can serve as a
resource that helps people recover from stressful events (Fredrickson, Tugade, Waugh, & Larkin,
2003; Tugade & Fredickson, 2004).
Functioning That is Both Hedonic and Eudaimonic
Finally, there are many additional functioning variables that do not clearly lean toward
hedonia or eudaimonia, but rather seem related to both concepts or related to well-being in
general. Some of the important ones are listed below.
Positive attitude. Associated concepts: hope (Snyder, 1995); optimism (Carver &
Scheier, 2002); gratitude (Emmons & McCullough, 2003); zest/enthusiasm (Peterson &
Seligman, 2004); positive thinking (Fordyce, 1983); self-efficacy (Prochaska & DiClemente,
1984).
Conceptually, hedonia and eudaimonia should both involve a positive attitude, as they are
both about engaging with the positive things in life. Empirically, hedonic and eudaimonic
orientations have both been related to hope/optimism, gratitude, and zest, though gratitude had
somewhat stronger links with eudaimonia (Buschor et al., 2013; Peterson et al., 2007).
Balance. Associated concepts: balance, harmony (Delle Fave et al., 2011a); work-life
balance (Allen, 2013).
In addition to rating personal satisfaction with different life domains, people are
concerned with the balance between them. In fact, Delle Fave and colleagues (2011a) found that
balance was the single most common definition that lay people gave for happiness in general.
Full functioning. It is becoming increasingly recognized that optimal functioning
involves appropriately mastering the full complement of abilities that humans are endowed with,
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
28
including both the positive and negative ones. Ryff and Singer (1998) wrote about appropriately
using both one’s positive qualities and one’s negative emotions, e.g., not avoiding the process of
mourning if one has lost a loved one. More recently, Kashdan and Biswas-Diener (2014) have
published a book called The Upside of Your Dark Side, reviewing research on the benefits of
negative emotions and the drawbacks of being excessively focused on positivity.
I have tentatively placed this concept in this general section, though other researchers,
most notably Ryff and Singer (1998), place full functioning with eudaimonia. I am reluctant to
place it under eudaimonia because it would further broaden an already large umbrella term, and I
believe it would make the definition of eudaimonia harder to grasp – at present, when
eudaimonia is defined primarily as authenticity, meaning, excellence/virtue, and growth, people
get a reasonably unitary feel for eudaimonia – it’s about using the best in oneself.
Personal aesthetic. I will list here an eclectic collection of concepts, but they all
represent functioning on the broadest, whole-person level, which together might be called the
individual’s personal aesthetic. These outcomes are subtle, but I hypothesize that they are shaped
by media use and I think they deserve empirical attention. The development of a personal
aesthetic is a largely unconscious process whereby a person becomes attuned to what he or she
considers attractive, enjoyable, funny, tolerable enough to ignore, disturbing enough to resist;
develops a sense of what proportions and composition he or she finds desirable; develops a taste
for certain things; becomes sensitized to some things and desensitized to others; develops
expectations about how exciting, ordinary, forceful, subtle, fun, easy, and challenging things
should be; and develops schemas about how people and the world typically work. Following the
use of certain media, aspects of a person’s aesthetic may shift either in less healthy directions
(e.g., imitating caricatured schemas of interpersonal behavior, or developing unreasonable
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
29
expectations about how easy things should be) or in more healthy directions (e.g., becoming
sensitized to the damage caused by prejudice, or becoming appreciative of other cultures by
developing a taste for their customs).
The Difference Between Mechanisms and Markers
I would like to close by situating the assessment of well-being variables in a broader
context. The distinction between hedonia and eudaimonia not only influences the selection of
specific well-being variables to be assessed, but also has implications for the broader issues of
research design and interpretation of findings. In the hedonic view, what matters is subjective
feelings – positive feelings in the moment, and frequent positive feelings in the long run
(Kahneman, 1999). In the eudaimonic view, what matters is the quality of behavior – feelings are
seen as markers of a life well lived rather than ends in themselves, and feelings are considered
desirable only to the degree that they have meaningful sources and meaningful consequences in
real life (Ryan & Huta, 2009; Waterman, 1993; Ryff, 1989).
Both views are important. In support of the hedonic perspective, research has shown the
many benefits of even brief positive affect, including broadened attention, a desire to build,
flexible thinking, efficiency, and relief of anxiety-induced cardiovascular reactions (Fredrickson,
2001; Fredrickson, Mancuso, Branigan, & Tugade, 2000).
On the other hand, the central roles of meaning and authenticity in eudaimonia bring an
important insight. A concern with meaning translates into considering the context of a wellbeing outcome – its situation with respect to precursors, consequences, and effects beyond the
self. A concern with authenticity translates into considering the relevance of a well-being
outcome to real life. It is as if peoples’ affective-cognitive processes are “buttons” designed to be
activated in certain contexts and during certain real-life processes. These buttons can be hedonic
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
30
and/or eudaimonic, triggering feelings such as accomplishment, competence, pleasure,
relatedness, and aliveness. However, there is a difference between simply activating a
mechanism (the button), and having that mechanism be a true marker of an appropriate process.
Simply triggering the mechanism does not ensure that the appropriate process has taken place,
with all its complexity, subtlety, effort, vulnerability, and growth. In other words, there can be a
short circuit, whereby the person derives the feelings intended to mark and reward a process,
but does not undergo the full process. Also, if a well-being mechanism is triggered in a situation
that is short-circuited or does not plug back into real life, the mechanism may not produce the
full array of possible benefits, and it may not benefit the person in the long run.
It is not easy to measure the broader implications of a well-being outcome, to see what it
means in the context of a participant’s whole life. Such broad considerations tend to arise later in
programs of research, once more proximal outcomes are established. But these considerations
imply that it will ultimately be important to study both short-term and long-term outcomes, both
experiences and overall functioning, and both outcomes in the lab and outcomes in various reallife domains.
References
Allen, T. D. (2013). The work-family role interface: A synthesis of the research from industrial
and organizational psychology. In N. W. Schmidt, S. Highhouse, and I. B. Irving (Eds.),
Handbook of Psychology, Volume 12, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd
Edition (pp. 698-718).
Allport, G. (1955). Becoming: Basic considerations for a psychology of personality. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Andersesen, S. M., Chen, S., & Carter, C. (2000). Fundamental human needs: Making social
cognition relevant. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 269-275.
doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_02
Anić, P. (2014). Hedonic and eudaimonic motives for favourite leisure activities. Primenjena
Psihologija, 7, 5-21.
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
31
Anić, P., & Tončić, M. (2013). Orientations to happiness, subjective well-being and life goals.
Psihologijske teme, 22, 135–153.
Annas, J. (1993). The morality of happiness. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Antonovsky, A. (1993). The structure and properties of the sense of coherence scale. Social
Science & Medicine, 36, 725–733. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(93)90033-Z
Archontaki, D., Lewis, G. J., & Bates, T. C. (2013). Genetic influences on psychological well‐
being: A nationally representative twin study. Journal of Personality, 81(2), 221– 230.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00787.x
Aristotle. (2001). Nichomachean ethics. In R. McKeon (Ed.), The basic works of Aristotle (pp.
928–1112). New York, NY: Modern Library. (Original work published 350 B.C.E.,
Oxford translation 1912–1954)
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Tonry, L. (2006). Using self-report
assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13, 27–45.
doi:10.1177/1073191105283504
Baltes, P. B., & Staudinger, U. M. (2000). Wisdom: A metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate
mind and virtue toward excellence. American Psychologist, 55, 122–136.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.122
Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Bauer, J. J. (2008). How the ego quiets as it grows: Ego development, growth stories, and
eudaimonic personality development. In H. A. Wayment & J. J. Bauer (Eds.),
Transcending self-interest: Psychological explorations of the quiet ego (pp. 199–210).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bauer, J. J., McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2008). Narrative identity and eudaimonic well-being.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 81–104. doi:10.1007/s10902-006-9021-6
Bauer, J. J., Schwab, J. R., & McAdams, D. P. (2011). Self-actualizing: Where ego development
finally feels good? The Humanistic Psychologist, 39, 121–136.
doi:10.1080/08873267.2011.564978
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., Aaker, J. & Garbinsky, E. N. (2013). Some key differences
between a happy life and a meaningful life. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8, 505516. doi:10.1080/17439760.2013.830764
Boniwell, I., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). Balancing one’s time perspective in pursuit of optimal
functioning. In P. A. Linley and S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (pp.
165-178). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Bonanno, G. A., Galea, S., Bucciarelli, A., & Vlahov, D. (2007). What predicts psychological
resilience after disaster? The role of demographics, resources, and life stress. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 671-682.
Braaten, A., Thompson, A., & Huta, V. (2014, July). Having a calling: Links with meaning in
undergraduate studies. Paper presented at The First Congress on The Construction of
Personal Meaning, Vancouver, BC.
Bradburn N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago: Aldine.
Buschor, C., Proyer, R. T., & Ruch, W. (2013). Self- and peer-rated character strengths: How do
they relate to satisfaction with life and orientations to happiness? Journal of Positive
Psychology, 8, 116–127. doi:10.1080/17439760.2012.758305
Bryant, F. B., & Veroff, J. (2007). Savoring: A new model of positive experience. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
32
Campbell, J., & Moyers, B. D. (1988). The power of myth. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2002). Optimism. In C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.),
Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 231–243). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A
theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267-283.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Beyond boredom and anxiety: experiencing flow in work and play
25th anniversary edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dambrun, M., & Ricard, M. (2011). Self-centeredness and selflessness: A theory of self-based
psychological functioning and its consequences for happiness. Review of General
Psychology, 15, 138-157. doi:10.1037/a0023059
Debats, D. L. (1998). Measurement of personal meaning: The psychometric properties of the life
regard index. In P.T.P. Wong (Ed.), The human quest for meaning: A handbook of
psychological research and clinical applications (pp. 237–260). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘‘what’’ and ‘‘why’’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Delle Fave, A., Brdar, I., Freire, T., Vella-Brodrick, D., & Wissing, M. P. (2011a). The
eudaimonic and hedonic components of happiness: Qualitative and quantitative findings.
Social Indicators Research, 100, 185–207. doi:10.1007/s11205-010-9632-5
Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (1988). Modernization and the changing context of flow in work
and leisure. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience:
Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 193–213). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Delle Fave, A., Massimini, F., & Bassi, M. (2011b). Psychological selection and optimal
experience across cultures: Social empowerment through personal growth. New York,
NY: Springer.
Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). The independence of positive and negative affect. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1105–1117. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.47.5.1105
Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three
decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi. D., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2009).
New Well-Being Measures: Short Scales to Assess Flourishing and Positive and Negative
Feelings. Social Indicators Research, 39, 247-266. doi:10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and
passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087–
1101. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.
Emmons, R. A. (2003). The psychology of ultimate concerns: Motivation and spirituality in
personality. New York, NY: Guilford.
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
33
Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An
experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective wellbeing in daily life. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 377–389. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.377
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and Society. New York, NY: Norton.
Fordyce, M. W. (1983). A program to increase happiness: Further studies. Journal of
Counselling Psychology, 30, 483–498. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.30.4.483
Fowers, B. J. (2008). From continence to virtue: Recovering goodness, character unity, and
character types for positive psychology. Theory and Psychology, 18, 629–653.
doi:10.1177/0959354308093399
Fowers, B. J. (2012). An Aristotelian framework for the human good. Journal of Theoretical and
Philosophical Psychology, 32, 10–23. doi:10.1037/a0025820
Fowers, B. J., Molica, C. O., & Procacci, E. N. (2010). Constitutive and instrumental goal
orientations and their relations with eudaimonic and hedonic well-being. Journal of
Positive Psychology, 5, 139–153. doi:10.1080/17439761003630045
Frankl, V. E. (1988). The will to meaning: Foundations and applications of logotherapy. New
York: Meridian.
Fredrickson, B. (2013). Love 2.0: How our supreme emotion affects everything we feel, think, do,
and become. Hudson Street Press.
Fredrickson, B.L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and
build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218-226.
Fredrickson, B. L., Mancuso, R. A., Branigan, C., Tugade, M. (2000). The undoing effect of
positive emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 24, 237-258.
Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin, G. R. (2003). What good are
positive emotions in crises?: A prospective study of resilience and emotions following the
terrorist attacks on the United States in September 11, 2001. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 84, 365-376.
Freud, S. (1920) A general introduction to psychoanalysis. New York, NY: Boni and Liveright.
Garcia-Romeu, A. (2010). Self-transcendence as a measurable transpersonal construct. The
Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 42, 26–47.
Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior
engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 199-223. doi:10.1023/A:1025007614869
Haidt, J. (2000). The positive emotion of elevation. Prevention and Treatment, 3.
doi:10.1037/1522-3736.3.1.33c
Haybron, D. (2008). Happiness, the self and human flourishing. Utilitas, 20, 21–49.
doi:10.1017/S0953820807002889
Heathwood, C. (2006). Desire-satisfactionism and hedonism. Philosophical Studies, 128, 539–
563. doi:10.1007/s11098-004-7817-y
Henderson, L. W., Knight, T., & Richardson, B. (2013). An exploration of the well-being
benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic behaviour. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8,
322-336. doi:10.1080/17439760.2013.803596
Hirschi, A. (2011). Effects of orientations to happiness on vocational identity achievement.
Career Development Quarterly, 59, 367–378. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2011.tb00075.x
Huta, V. (2012). Linking peoples’ pursuit of eudaimonia and hedonia with characteristics of their
parents: Parenting styles, verbally endorsed values, and role modeling. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 13, 47–61. doi:10.1007/s10902-011-9249-7
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
34
Huta, V. (2013a). Pursuing eudaimonia versus hedonia: Distinctions, similarities, and
relationships. In A. Waterman (Ed.), The best within us: Positive psychology perspectives
on eudaimonic functioning (pp. 139–158).Washington, DC: APA Books.
Huta, V. (2013b). Eudaimonia. In S. David, I. Boniwell, & A. C. Ayers (Eds.), Oxford handbook
of happiness (pp. 201–213). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Huta, V. (2014, July). How is meaning distinct from subjective well-being? Data on two key
categories of well-being. Invited address at the First Congress on the Construction of
Personal Meaning, Vancouver, B.C.
Huta, V. (2015a). The complementary roles of eudaimonia and hedonia and how they can be
pursued in practice. In S. Joseph (Ed.), Positive psychology in practice: promoting human
flourishing in work, health, education, and everyday life (2nd ed., pp. 159-182) Wiley.
Huta, V. (2015b, June). Eudaimonic and hedonic orientations (motives): Recent work on links
with seeing beyond the self, the present, and the concrete. In V. Huta (Chair), Advances
in research on eudaimonia. Symposium conducted at the Fourth World Congress on
Positive Psychology, Orlando, Florida.
Huta, V. Meaning as a Subjective Experience. (2015c). Journal of Constructivist Psychology:
Meaning Summit Special Issue. Accepted.
Huta,V., Pelletier, L., Baxter, D., & Thompson, A. (2012). How eudaimonic and hedonic
motives relate to the well-being of close others. Journal of Positive Psychology, 7, 399–
404. doi:10.1080/17439760.2012.705318
Huta, V., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Pursuing pleasure or virtue: The differential and overlapping
well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. Journal of Happiness Studies,
11, 735–762. doi:10.1007/s10902-009-9171-4
Huta, V., & Waterman A. S. (2014). Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia: Developing a
classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 1425-1456. doi:10.1007/s10902-013-9485-0
Huta, V., & Zuroff, D. C. (2007). Examining mediators of the link between generativity and
well-being. Journal of Adult Development, 14, 47–52. doi:10.1007/s10804-007-9030-7
Jung, C. G. (1933). Modern man in search of a soul. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace, & World.
Kahneman, D. (1999). Objective happiness. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, and N. Schwartz (Eds.),
Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 3-25). New York: Russell Sage.
Kashdan, T., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2014). The upside of your dark side: Why being your whole
self – not just your “good” self – drives success and fulfillment. New York, NY: Hudson
Street Press.
Kasser, T. (2009). Psychological need satisfaction, personal well-being, and ecological
sustainability. Ecopsychology, 1, 175-180. doi:10.1089/eco.2009.0025
Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion.
Cognition and Emotion, 17, 297–314. doi:10.1080/02699930302297
Kern, M. L., & Butler, J. (June, 2013). The PERMA-Profiler: A brief multidimensional measure
of flourishing. Poster presented at the Third World Congress on Positive Psychology, Los
Angeles, California.
Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43, 207–222. doi:10.2307/3090197
Keyes, C. L. M, & Annas, J. (2009). Feeling good and functioning well: Distinctive concepts in
ancient philosophy and contemporary science. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4,
197–201. doi:10.1080/17439760902844228
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
35
King, L. A. & Napa, C. K. (1998). What makes a life good? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75, 156–165. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.156
Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral
stages. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
Konečni, V. J. (2005). The aesthetic trinity: Awe, being moved, thrills. Bulletin of Psychology
and the Arts, 5, 27–44.
Kurzban, R. R., Burton-Chellew, M. N.,& West, S. A. (2015). The evolution of altruism in
humans. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 575-99.
Kraut, R. (2007). What is good and why: The ethics of well-being. Cambridge MA: Harvard
University Press.
Leary, M. R., Tipsord, J. M., & Tate, E. M. (2008). Allo-inclusive identity: Incorporating the
social and natural worlds into one's sense of self. In H. A. Wayment & J. J. Bauer (Eds.),
Transcending self-interest: Psychological exploration of the quiet ego (pp. 137-147).
Washington, DC: APA.
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near
and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 75, 5-18. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.5
Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lyubomirsky, S. & Lepper, H. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability
and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 137–155.
doi:10.1023/A:1006824100041
Mack, D. E., Gunnell, K. E., Wilson, P. M., Gilchrist, J. D., Kowalski, K. C., Crocker, P. R. E., .
. . Adachi, J. D. (2011). Physical activity in individuals living with osteopenia:
Association with psychological need satisfaction and motives for well-being. The Shield Research Journal of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, 6, 26-41.
Maddux, J. E. (2009). Self-regulation. In S. Lopez (Ed.), The encyclopedia of positive
psychology (pp. 874–880). Chichester, England: Blackwell.
Maslow, A. H. (1964). Religion, values, and peak-experiences. Columbus: Ohio State University
Press.
Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York, NY: Van Norstrand.
Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper and Row.
McAdams, D. P., & de St. Aubin, E. (1998). How and why we care for the next generation.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
McGregor, I., & Little, B. R. (1998). Personal projects, happiness, and meaning: On doing well
and being yourself. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 494–512.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.494
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. I. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science,
244, 933–938. doi:10.1126/science.2658056
Norton, D. L. (1976). Personal destinies: A philosophy of ethical individualism. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Onfray, M. (2013). Manifeste Hédoniste. France: Editions 84.
Orlick, T. (1990). In pursuit of excellence: How to win in sport and life through mental training.
(2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Leisure Press.
Otake, K., Shimai, S., Tanaka-Matsumi, J., Otsui, K., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). Happy people
become happier through kindness: A counting kindnesses intervention. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 7(3), 361–375. doi:10.1007/s10902-005-3650-z
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
36
Pearce, K., Huta, V., & Voloaca, M. (2015). Seeing beyond the self, the present, and the
concrete: A comparison of eudaimonic and hedonic approaches to life. Journal of
Positive Psychology. Manuscript in preparation.
Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Orientations to happiness and life
satisfaction: The full life versus the empty life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 25–41.
doi:10.1007/s10902-004-1278-z
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and
classification. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Peterson, C., Ruch, W., Beermann, U., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2007). Strengths of
character, orientations to happiness, and life satisfaction. Journal of Positive Psychology,
2, 1–8. doi:10.1080/17439760701228938
Piedmont, R. L. (1999). Does spirituality represent the sixth factor of personality? Spiritual
transcendence and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 67, 985–1013.
doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00080
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1984). The transtheoretical approach: Towards a
systematic eclectic framework. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones Irwin.
Proyer, R.T., Annen, H., Eggimann, N., Schneider, A., & Ruch, W. (2012). Assessing the “good
life“ in a military context: How does life and work-satisfaction relate to orientations to
happiness and career-success among swiss professional officers? Social Indicators
Research, 106, 577-590. doi:10.1007/s11205-011-9823-8
Reich, J. W., Zautra, A. J., & Hall, J. S. (Eds.) Handbook of adult resilience. New York:
Guilford Press.
Ruch, W., Proyer, R. T., & Weber, M. (2010). Humor as a character strength among the elderly:
Empirical findings on age-related changes and its contribution to satisfaction with life.
Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 43, 13–18. doi:10.1007/s00391-009-0090-0
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on
hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141
Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a
dynamic reflection of well‐ being. Journal of Personality, 65, 529–565.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00326.x
Ryan, R. M., & Huta, V. (2009). Wellness as healthy functioning or wellness as happiness: The
importance of eudaimonic thinking. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 202-204.
Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Living well: A self-determination theory
perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 139–170.
doi:10.1007/s10902-006-9023-4
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of
psychological wellbeing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic
approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 13–39.
doi:10.1007/s10902-006-9019-0
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (1998). The role of purpose in life and personal growth in positive
human health. In P.S. Fry & P.T.P. Wong (Eds.), The human quest for meaning (pp. 213–
236). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
37
Schlegel, R. J., Hicks, J. A., King, L. A., & Arndt, J. (2011). Feeling like you know who you are:
Perceived true self-knowledge and meaning in life. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 37, 745–756. doi:10.1177/0146167211400424
Schueller, S. M., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2010). Differential pursuit of pleasure, engagement, and
meaning: Relationships to subjective and objective well-being. Journal of Positive
Psychology, 5, 253-263. doi:10.1080/17439761003794130
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness. New York, NY: Free Press.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and wellbeing. New York, NY: Free Press.
Sheldon, K. (2013). Individual daimon, universal needs, and subjective well-being: Happiness as
the natural consequence of a life well lived. In A. S. Waterman (Ed.), The best within us:
Positive psychology perspectives on eudaimonia (pp. 119–138). Washington, DC: APA.
Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (1995). Coherence and congruence: Two aspects of personality
integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 531–543.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.531
Sherrod, L. R., Torney-Purta, J., & Flanagan, C. A., (2010). Handbook of Research on Civic
Engagement in Youth. Hanboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Snyder, C. R. (1995). Conceptualizing, measuring and nurturing hope. Journal of Counselling
and Development, 73, 355–360. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1995.tb01764.x
Steger, M. F. (2012). Experience meaning in life: Optimal functioning at the nexus of
spirituality, psychopathology, and well-being. In P. T. P. Wong (Eds.), The Human quest
for meaning (2nd Ed., pp. 165-184). New York, NY: Routledge.
Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The Meaning in Life Questionnaire:
Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 53, 80-93.doi:10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80
Steger, M. F., Kashdan, T. B., & Oishi, S. (2008). Being good by doing good: Daily eudaimonic
activity and well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 22–42.
doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.03.004
Steger, M. F., & Shin, J. Y. (2012). Happiness and meaning in a technological age: A
psychological approach. In P. Brey, A. Briggle, & E. Spence (Eds.), The good life in a
technological age (pp. 92–108). New York: Routledge.
Steger, M. F., Shin, J.-Y., Shim, Y., & Fitch-Martin, A. (2013). Is meaning in life a flagship
indicator of well-being? In A. Waterman (Ed.), Eudaimonia (pp. 159–182). Washington,
DC: APA Press.
Sumner, L. (1996). Welfare, happiness and ethics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Thrash, T. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2003). Inspiration as a psychological construct. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 871–889. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.871
Tiberius, V. (2013). Recipies of a good life: Eudaimonism and the contribution of philosophy. In
A. S. Waterman (Ed.), The best within us: Positive psychology perspectives on
eudaimonia (pp. 19–38). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007). The psychological structure of pride: A tale of two facets.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 506–525.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.506
Tugade, M. M., Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce
back from negative emotional experiences. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,
86, 320-333.
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
38
Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1987). What do people think they’re doing? Action
identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 3-15.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.94.1.3
Vella-Brodrick, D. A., Park, N.,& Peterson, C. (2009). Three ways to be happy: Pleasure,
engagement, and meaning-findings from Australian and US samples. Social Indicators
Research, 90, 165–179. doi:10.1007/s11205-008-9251-6
Vittersø, J. (2004). Subjective well-being versus self-actualization: Using the flow-simplex to
promote a conceptual, clarification of subjective quality of life. Social Indicators
Research, 65, 299–331. doi:10.1023/B:SOCI.0000003910.26194.ef
Vittersø, J., Dyrdal, G.M., & Røysamb, E. (June, 2005). Utilities and capabilities: A
psychological account of the two concepts and their relations to the idea of a good life.
Paper presented at Workshop on Capabilities and Happiness, Bicocca, Italy.
Vittersø, J., Oelmann, H. I., & Wang, A. L. (2009). Life satisfaction is not a balanced estimator
of the good life: Evidence from reaction-time measures and self-reported emotions.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 1–17. doi:10.1007/s10902-007-9058-1
Vittersø, J., & Søholt, Y. (2011). Life satisfaction goes with pleasure and personal growth goes
with interest: Further arguments for separating hedonic and eudaimonic well-being.
Journal of Positive Psychology, 6, 326–335. doi:10.1080/17439760.2011.584548
Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness
(eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64,
678–691. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.678
Waterman, A. S. (2007). Doing well: The relationship of identity status to three conceptions of
well-being. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 7, 289–307.
doi:10.1080/15283480701600769
Waterman, A. S., & Schwartz, S. J. (2013). Eudaimonic identity theory. In A. S. Waterman
(Ed.), The best within us: Positive psychology perspectives on eudaimonia (pp. 99–118).
Washington, DC: APA.
Waterman, A. S., Schwartz, S. J., & Conti, R. (2008). The implications of two conceptions of
happiness (hedonic enjoyment and eudaimonia) for the understanding of intrinsic
motivation. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 41–79. doi:10.1007/s10902-006-9020-7
Waterman, A. S., Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., Ravert, R. D., Williams, M. K., Agocha, V.
B. Brent, D. M. (2010). The questionnaire for eudaimonic well-being: Psychometric
properties, demographic comparisons, and evidence of validity. Journal of Positive
Psychology, 5, 41–61. doi:10.1080/17439760903435208
Wong, P. T. P. (2010). Meaning therapy: An integrative and positive existential psychotherapy.
Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 40, 85-99. doi:10.1007/s10879-009-9132-6
Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C. R., Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Jobs, careers, and
callings: People’s relations to their work. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 21–
33. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1997.2162
Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individualdifferences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1271-1288.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1271
Running Head: EUDAIMONIA VERSUS HEDONINA
39
Veronika Huta (Ph.D., McGill University, 2005) is Associate Professor of Psychology at the
University of Ottawa. Her research focuses on well-being, the distinction between pursuing
hedonia (pleasure) and eudaimonia (excellence), and the experiences of meaning and elevation.
Her teaching focuses on statistics. She has received a top-poster award at an international
conference, and is among the top rated instructors in her department. She is on the editorial board
of three well-being journals, and is co-founder of the Canadian Positive Psychology Association.