Reconsidering happiness: the costs of distinguishing between hedonics and eudaimonia

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution , reselling , loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. 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 Introduction The place of happiness in the Good Life has been a central concern for thinkers from Aristotle to the present day. In Nicomachean ethics, Aristotle famously distinguished hedonism (the life occupied by the search for pleasure) and eudaimonia (happiness that arises from good works). Contemporary psychologists have drawn on this Aristotelian distinction to suggest that modern well-being research falls into two conceptual camps: hedonics, which focuses on how the person feels about his or her life, and eudaimonics, which focuses on living a life in full accord with one's potential (Ryan & Deci, 2001). In recent years, this distinction has gained widespread acceptance among researchers, providing scholars with a language …