Many people seem to associate happiness with enjoyment and pleasure, but are only the activities and/or actions in which we find pleasure the ones that make us truly happy? Does happiness have a positive correlation with pleasure? Does happiness give meaning? to our lives?
Positive psychology has sought to shed light on these questions by highlighting two approaches, the hedonistic perspective and the eudaimonic perspective (Delle Fave, Brdar, Freire, Vella-Brodrick, & Wissing, 2011).
The hedonistic perspective is a philosophical current that explains people’s well-being based on experiencing experiences that maximize pleasure and minimize unpleasant experiences (Peterson, Park & Seligman, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2001).
In association with the concept of hedonism, the construct of subjective well-being arises, which includes a cognitive dimension (life satisfaction) and an affective dimension (Diner, Lucas, Oishi, 2002). The dimension of life satisfaction is the cognitive evaluation of life as a whole, while the dimensions of positive affect are related to the frequency with which positive emotions are experienced and negative affect is related to the frequency of negative emotions. This is the evaluation carried out by the subjects in cognitive and emotional terms.
High subjective well-being is related to life satisfaction, positive affect, and low levels of negative affect. The factors that intervene in well-being are diverse. They can be related to the economy, health, interpersonal relationships, work situation, etc. The hedonic current has enjoyed predominance in the field of study on happiness, despite this many philosophers debated happiness from a eudaimonic perspective. Aristotle postulated that all human activity has a purpose and that people attempt to live according to their true selves in the attempt to have a meaningful life (Aristotle, 1993). Eudaimonia is presented as a state that involves the feelings and emotions that act when people move towards self-realization, which will allow them the possibility of developing their maximum potential and giving meaning to their lives (Delle Fave, Wissing, Brdar, Vella- Broderick & Freire, 2013; Waterman, Schwartz & Conti, 2008).
If you value articles like this, consider supporting us by becoming a Pro subscriber. Subscribers enjoy access to members-only articles, materials, and webinars.
The eudaimonic perspective explains that well-being is not only achieved through pleasure, but is mainly achieved through the actualization of human potential. This perspective finds representation in the theory of psychological well-being (Riff & Singer, 2007), an approach that proposes that well-being can be achieved through the achievement of certain positive traits. Purpose in life, positive relationships, environmental mastery, personal growth, self-acceptance and autonomy.
Hedonic or Eudaimonic Perspective?
In a study carried out in Argentina, researchers posed the following questions: Do happier people have a more hedonic or eudaimonic way of conceiving happiness? Can happiness be perceived in both hedonic and eudaimonic terms? (Flores-Kanter, P., Muñoz-Navarro, R., & Medrano, L., 2018). The study set out to investigate, on the one hand, what paradigms citizens take into account when defining happiness and, on the other, to verify whether subjects vary in their levels of subjective happiness depending on how they have defined the concept of happiness.
To carry out the study, the natural semantic networks (RSN) technique was used, which consists of asking participants to define the stimulus or reaction with a minimum of five words. When reference is made to one of the conceptions of happiness, an individual cognitive representation of the environment and experiences of well-being is implied. RSNs allow us to know the meaning that subjects give to the concept. Then, each of the selected words was assigned its membership to each of the perspectives on happiness, hedonic and eudaimonic. After this, the 15 words with the most centrality were selected, 9 of the selected words corresponded to a eudaimonic perspective and 6 of the words to the hedonic perspective. The three words with the highest centrality correspond to the eudaimonic perspective of happiness.
What did the researchers observe?
In their results, the authors write that 36.28% of the total centrality values corresponded to hedonic definitions of happiness. And the remaining 63.72% correspond to the eudaimonic definition of happiness.
In order to make a comparison, it was necessary to work with two extreme groups: 25% of the total participants who expressed the highest level of happiness and 25% of the participants who expressed the lowest level of happiness.
It was observed that both hedonic and eudaimonic components were found in both the total sample and the compared groups. Additionally, participants with higher levels of subjective happiness chose words that represented a predominantly eudaimonic conception of happiness.
These findings suggest that subjects with a predominantly eudaimonic conception have significantly higher levels of perceived happiness compared to subjects where the conception of happiness is predominantly hedonic.
The way in which subjects define well-being will impact the activities they carry out in the various areas of life, actions that subjects will implement precisely to achieve well-being or happiness.
The results of the study do not indicate that people should choose one conception of happiness over another, but it has been concluded that the happiest people share both conceptions, although the eudaimonic conception of happiness predominates over the hedonic one.
References:
Aristotle (1993), Nicomachean Ethics. (trans. J. Pallí Bonet). Madrid: Gredos.
Bojanowska, A., & Zalewska, A.M. (2015). Lay understanding of happiness and the experience of well-being: Are some conceptions of happiness more beneficial than others? J. Happiness. Stud, 17(2), 793-815. doi:10.1007/s10902-015-9620-1
Diener, E., Lucas, R., & Oishi, S. (2002). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and life satisfaction. In C. Snyder & S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 63-73). New York: Oxford University Press.
Diener, E., Suh, E., Lucas, R., & Smith, H. (1999). Subjective well-being: three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276-302.
Delle Fave, A., Brdar, I., Freire, T., Vella-Brodrick, D., & Wissing, M. (2011). The eudaimonic and hedonic components of happiness: Qualitative and quantitative findings. Research on social indicators, 100, 185-207.
Flores-Kanter, P., Muñoz-Navarro, R., & Medrano, L. (2018). Conceptions of Happiness and its relationship with Subjective Well-being: A study using Natural Semantic Networks. Liberabit, 24(1), 115- doi: 10.24265/liberabit.2018.v24n1.08
Peterson, C., Park Nansook, P., & Seligman, M. (2005). Orientations to happiness and satisfaction with life: full life versus empty life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 25-41.
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Psychology of Annual Reviews, 52, 141-166.
Riff, CD, & Singer, B. (2007) Ironies of the human condition: Well-being and health on the path to mortality. In LG Aspinwall & UM Staudinger (Eds.), Psychology of Human Potential (pp. 367-389). Spain: Gedisa Editorial.