Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Researchers view well-being as the state of general satisfaction of a particular person or a group of people. Currently, there are two main directions in the study of the psychological well-being of a person: eudaimonic and hedonic. Supporters of the eudaimonic school of thought are convinced that the term well-being must be considered in the context of a persons realization of their potential (Waterman, 1993). From the perspective of hedonists, well-being is achieved by moral acceptance of pleasure (Veenhoven, 2003). Although the perception of the phenomenon of well-being differs between the two theories, both theories are essential for research on improving the quality of life of an individual (Huta & Ryan, 2009). Every sane person wants to achieve a state of pleasure, so the ways to achieve such a state are of interest to researchers of various fields of knowledge, including psychologists.
There are many controversial themes in studying these two theories, which determine the relevance of this study. Therefore, the research will cover issues of perception of well-being in theoretical and methodological aspects based on previously published research (Maggino, 2015; McMahan & Estes, 2011; Huta & Ryan, 2009). The analysis will use relevant materials from published scientific papers on the research topic. The outcomes of previous researchers methodological developments and the interconnections between the two directions of thought will be examined.
To fully comprehend the two philosophies under consideration, one must look at each theorys development cycle. There is a long history of the emergence of a philosophical view, equating well-being with happiness (Ryan & Deci, 2001). The ancient Greek philosopher Aristippus is considered to be the founder of hedonism. The many pleasures of Aristippus are portrayed as the quest for erotic satisfaction, such as laying down with concubines and getting fine food and old wines (Lampe, 2015). In turn, Epicurus thought of fulfilling desires as a way of freedom from disgust and general unhappiness (Irwin, 1991). In the early stages of hedonism, well-being was perceived as satisfying physical whims.
The arrival of a genuine philosophical way to deal with indulgence is typically associated with the British legal advisor and logician Jeremy Bentham. According to Bentham, the essence of well-being is the greatest balance of satisfaction over pain. In his opinion, the word well-being appears to include both the positive and negative aspects of a persons existence (Collard, 2006). The definition of the word has shifted in the eyes of contemporary well-being researchers (Dodge et al., 2012). Changes in the content of the term are primarily associated with the prevailing views of philosophers of different times.
Modern psychologists-researchers of hedonism interpret the term much broader than their predecessors. In this concept, pleasure is seen as a preference for the mind and the body (Diener et al., 1998). In the well-being model developed by Ed Diener, the psychologist included emotional reactions and cognitive judgments among the components influencing how people perceive the quality of their life (Diener et al., 1998). Thus, it was no longer possible to view well-being solely as the satisfaction of physical needs. There is also an increasing trend towards abandoning the terms hedonia and pleasure. Instead of these words, psychologists prefer to use terms like subjective well-being (SWB) or happiness (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Now modern psychologists measure the level of a persons well-being evaluating such indicators as life satisfaction, enjoyment with ones life, the emergence of an optimistic mood, and the lack of a negative mood (Maggino, 2015). Recent research shows that scientists must abandon their skepticism of PWB because the concepts beneficial effects on human health have been scientifically established (Trudel-Fitzgerald et al., 2019). Having dealt with the historical context of the formation of the term, one should turn to the study of creating the eudaimonic concept.
As already indicated earlier, eudaimonic well-being is determined by the individuals striving for perfection. As one of the first followers of eudaimonism, Aristotle thought that human good is the virtuous activity of the rational soul (Charles & Scott, 1999). Still, some modern research on human happiness is based on Aristotles theory (Crespo & Mesurado, 2015). Drawing from Aristotle, Fromm wrote that one could no longer see individual freedom as an essential component of well-being because of the widespread development of capitalist relations. He also noted that the growth of selfish tendencies is fraught with the greatest danger for well-being. The essence of individual and social health and well-being, according to Fromm, is love. Love in all of its manifestations, such as parental, brotherly, romantic, and so on (Enescu, 2019). It should be noted here that the researchers managed to find out how the content of the eudemonic theory changed at the stage of its formation.
For this study, the term psychological well-being is also essential. The word psychological wellness (PWB) is much like other words used to describe optimistic mental states like happiness or satisfaction. Six components make up psychological well-being: self-acceptance, positive relations with others, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life, and personal growth (Ryff, 1989, p. 1069). Therefore, psychological well-being is achieved by finding a state of equilibrium influenced by both stressful and satisfying life events.
In considering the emergence of eudaimonic philosophy, it is essential to analyze what self-determination theory is. The scientific novelty of the self-determination theory (SDT) is that it combined the generalization of the eudaimonic view and stated the individuals self-actualization issue (Ryff, 1989). Moreover, this theory assumes that there are three psychological needs, the satisfaction of which is critical in the context of human well-being. Subjective vitality, described as the sensation of being alive, vigorous, and energetic, has been the focus of SDT. As a result, having such vitality is critical for both feeling good and working well. Since circumstances promoting subjective well-being do not always lead to eudaimonic well-being, SDT research has combined subjective well-being indicators with assessments of self-actualization, vitality, and mental well-being (Kasser, 1996). Thus, according to SDT, well-being as a concept must be perceived as more than just a hedonic combination of pleasure and pain.
Cognitive theorists are interested in finding answers to many questions about happiness, such as its meaning, measurement, causes, and consequences. In the course of this study, several questions are to be answered. In particular, how reasonable is such a clear distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic theories? By adhering to which concept does a person achieve greater happiness? Is it possible to assume that one of the concepts is better than the other? Looking towards relevant academic literature will provide the most comprehensive look at the questions addressed in the research.
In 1998 researchers had made a distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic theories on happiness. It was found out how the dualism of theories can relate to research paradigms (Ryan & Deci, 2001; Ryff & Singer, 1998). The discovered duality of the two theories initiated many studies in which scientists identified the similarities and differences between the two philosophies. The research results revealed an internal interdependence of these theories, making it incorrect to speak of these two analyzed approaches as fundamentally opposed to each other. Kashdan and his colleagues mention that many researchers have not considered the variability of results depending on the types of virtues actualized in human life (Kashdan et al., 2008). However, it is also evident that the construction used is convenient from a structural point of view: it is easier to carry out comparative analysis on the contrast of theories.
Theoretical research on well-being allows reasonable inferences to be drawn about the factors influencing a persons happiness. In this regard, the question arises as to which of the theories is more consistent with a persons desire to receive life satisfaction. This issue becomes especially relevant in connection with the dominant tendency for non-professionals to use the terminology of the two analyzed concepts in conversation about well-being (King and Napa, 1998). When answering the question of what makes their life happy, research participants unconsciously mention the components of eudaimonic theorys well-being. Some researchers adhere to the position that well-being in eudaimonic terms is more necessary for positive psychological functioning (McMahan & Estes, 2011). McMahan argues that since eudaimonic approaches include intrinsically good behaviors for the person, they are likely to be correlated with long-term and lasting well-being. For most people, a state of well-being is associated with a long-term feeling and not with momentary pleasure (Oishi et al., 2001). Therefore, they will most likely be adherent to the eudaimonic well-being concept.
The hedonic approach can be partially reduced to a persons search for sensations that give happiness. Research in this area has made it possible to formulate disappointing conclusions: sensation-seeking has been linked to many negative consequences, including drug abuse and dangerous behavior (McMahan & Estes, 2011). Although one may experience pleasant sensations and not only when doing drugs or doing risky things, there is a high possibility of becoming addicted to such endorphin and dopamine-inducing activities. Thus, it can be considered that it is preferable to adhere to the eudaimonic theory in terms of the psychological health of individuals. The concept of hedonism is also criticized from an environmental point of view, as hedonism gives rise to over-consumption (Veenhoven, 2003, p. 2). However, the question of which of the concepts is better is incorrect since both theories are extremely well-grounded in theory. The fact that one approach has a more significant effect on the well-being of an individual does not make him better.
There is enough research on the positive impact of following the eudaimonic philosophy; however, less research has been done on the relative effect of hedonic and eudaimonic methods combined. However, of the currently available works devoted to the complex use of concepts, Huta and Ryans study should be noted. The findings of their research show that within a complete picture of well-being, hedonia and eudaimonia occupy both overlapping and distinct niches, and their combination can be correlated with the greatest well-being (Huta & Ryan, 2009). Indeed, hedonia is responsible for the process of emotional recovery of the personality, while eudaimonia helps the person feel their importance and contributes to realizing the meaning of existence (Huta & Ryan, 2009). It is precisely the combination of these two motives making it possible to achieve the highest well-being; this combination simultaneously actualizes both emotional and existential needs.
Thus, at this stage, there are two dominant concepts of well-being. As the culture developed, the content of the terms changed. Even though many consider them independent, only a broad appeal to these two theories can provide the most productive research regarding the quality of human life. Basing well-being only on hedonic reasons can lead to a significant deterioration in the quality of life of an individual.
References
Collard, D. (2006). Research on Well-Being: Some Advice from Jeremy Bentham. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 36(3), 330-354. Web.
Charles, D., & Scott, D. (1999). Aristotle on Well-Being and Intellectual Contemplation. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 73, 205-242. Web.
Crespo, R. F., & Mesurado, B. (2015). Happiness economics, eudaimonia, and positive psychology: From happiness economics to flourishing economics. Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 16(4), 931946. Web.
Diener, E., Sapyta, J., & Suh, E. (1998). Subjective well-being is essential to well-being. Psychological Inquiry, 9(1), 33-37. Web.
Dodge, R., Daly, A., Huyton, J., & Sanders, L. (2012). The challenge of defining well-being. International Journal of Wellbeing, 2, 222-235. Web.
Enescu, C. (2019). Erich Fromm a therapeutic vision well ahead of its time. Erich Fromms contribution to experiential psychotherapy. Journal of Experiential Psychotherapy, 22(3), 12-19. Web.
Huta, V., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Pursuing pleasure or virtue: The differential and overlapping well-being benefits of hedonic and Eudaimonic motives. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(6), 735-762. Web.
Irwin, T. (1991). Aristippus against happiness. The Monist, 74(1), 55-82. Web.
Kashdan, T., & Biswas-Diener, R., & King, L. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: The costs of distinguishing between hedonics and eudaimonia. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3, 219-233. Web.
Kasser, T., Ryan, R.M., (1996). Further Examining the American Dream: Differential Correlates of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22 (3), 80287. Web.
King, L. A., & Napa, C. K. (1998). What makes a life good? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 156165. Web.
Lampe, K. (2015). The Birth of Hedonism: The Cyrenaic Philosophers and Pleasure as a Way of Life. Princeton. Princeton University Press. Web.
Maggino, F. (2015). Subjective well-being and subjective aspects of well-being: Methodology and theory. Rivista Internazionale Di Scienze Sociali, 123(1), 89-121. Web.
McMahan, E. A., & Estes, D. (2011). Hedonic versus eudaimonic conceptions of well-being: Evidence of differential associations with self-reported well-being. Social Indicators Research, 103 (1). Web.
Oishi, S., Diener, E., Suh, E., & Lucas, R. E. (1999). Value as a moderator in subjective well-being. Journal of Personality, 67(1), 157-184.
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, 141-148.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 10691081. Web.
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (1998). The contours of positive human health. Psychological Inquiry, 9(1), 1-28. Web.
Trudel-Fitzgerald C., Millstein R. A., von Hippel C., Howe C. J., Tomasso L. P., Wagner G. R., & VanderWeele T. J. (2019). Psychological well-being as part of the public health debate? Insight into dimensions, interventions, and policy. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1712. Web.
Veenhoven, R. (2003). Hedonism and Happiness: Experience Sampling Methodology. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4, 437-457. Web.
Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 678-691. Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.