2008/10/01 by Todd B. Kashdan, Robert Biswas‐Diener, Laura A. King · 3 citations
Psychology · #Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction #Optimism, Hope, and Well-being #Mental Health Research Topics #Happiness #Eudaimonia #Psychology #Social psychology #Positive psychology #Meaning (existential) #Well-being #Affect (linguistics) #Subjective well-being #Purpose in life #Empirical evidence #Epistemology #Philosophy
paper · doi:10.1080/17439760802303044
openalex publication_date 2008/10/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/29
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