Life satisfaction goes with pleasure and personal growth goes with interest: Further arguments for separating hedonic and eudaimonic well-being

Vittersø, Joar; Søholt, Yngvil

doi:10.1080/17439760.2011.584548

Cited by 93 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although in the past it was rarely studied, it became a respected and major subject for various research programs (Aknin, Dunn, & Norton, 2012;Delle Fave, Brdar, Freire, Vella-Brodrick, & Wissing, 2011;Gilovich, Kumar, & Jampol, 2015;Kashdan, Biswas-Diener, & King, 2008;Keyes, & Annas, 2009;Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005; Pe-anales de psicología, 2016, vol. 32, nº 3 (octubre) terson, Park, & Seligman, 2005;Ryan, Huta, & Deci, 2008;Seligman, & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000;Veenhoven, 2010;Vittersø, & Søholt 2011). A similar trend was also observed in other disciplines, like neuroscience (Berridge, & Kringelbach, 2011) or economy (Frey, & Stutzer, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 56%

What are people saying when they report they are happy or life satisfied

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Título: A qué se refiere la gente cuando informa que son felices o que están satisfechos con la vida. Resumen: El estudio de la felicidad estuvo dominado con el modelo de bienestar subjetivo. Con la llegada de la psicología positiva entran en juego los modelos de felicidad hedónicos y eudaimónico, pero los principales estudios siguen utilizando medidas de un solo elemento de satisfacción con la vida o de felicidad. En este trabajo estudiamos la asociación entre la satisfacción con la vida y la felicidad, medida cada una de ellas con un solo ítem mediante una representación gráfica de una escalera y de un termómetro, y los tres modelos de felicidad: el bienestar subjetivo, la felicidad eudaimónica y la felicidad hedonista. Los resultados mostraron que el bienestar subjetivo fue el principal predictor de la satisfacción con la vida y el modelo hedónico también predijo en menor grado esa misma variable. Para el caso de la felicidad los predictores fueron los mismos, pero en orden inverso, el predictor principal fue el modelo hedónico y en un menor grado por el bienestar subjetivo. Contrariamente a nuestra hipótesis, la perspectiva de felicidad eudaimónica no es un predictor en ninguno de los modelos. Estos resultados subrayan la importancia de la interacción entre una perspectiva cognitiva o una hedónica en el estudio de la felicidad. Palabras clave: felicidad, satisfacción con la vida, bienestar subjetivo. Abstract:The study of happiness was dominated with the model of subjective well-being. With the advent of positive psychology the eudaimonic and hedonic models entered the field, but major surveys continue to use single-item measures of life satisfaction or happiness. We study the associations between life satisfaction and happiness, measured single-items with a graphic representation of a ladder and a thermometer, and three models of happiness: the subjective well-being, the eudaimonic and hedonic. The results showed that subjective well-being was the main predictor of life satisfaction and hedonic model also predicted a small amount of this variable. For happiness the predictors were the same but in reversed order, the main predictor was the hedonic model and a small variance was explained by subjective well-being. Contrary to our hypothesis the eudaimonic perspective of happiness was not a predictor in none of the models. These results underline the importance of the interaction between a cognitive or appraisal perspective and the hedonic perspectives for the study of happiness.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 56%

What are people saying when they report they are happy or life satisfied

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One example they provided was when an individual is grieving the loss of someone, whereby a decrease in SWB would be considered part of an entirely healthy process. Furthermore, periods of uncertainty and adjustment are often associated with meaning-making and personal growth yet can also be associated with decreased SWB (Vittersø & Søholt, 2011). These examples question whether SWB alone is an adequate indicator of wellbeing, and suggest that eudaimonic approaches represent an important adjunct to SWB.…”

Section: Recent Debatementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Counter to Waterman et al's (2008) proposition that eudaimonic pursuits are always accompanied by hedonic pleasure is recent research by Vittersø and Søholt (2011). Vitttersø and colleagues have published a number of papers delineating the differences between eudaimonia and hedonia (e.g.…”

Section: Conceptual Focusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To test this, Vittersø and Søholt (2011) had Norwegian Folk High School students complete measures of life satisfaction, personal growth, and both state and trait measures of the emotions of interest (three items: engagement, interest, and enthusiasm) and pleasure (three items: contentment, enjoyment, and happiness). All measures were completed on two separate occasions four months apart, except for the state emotion measure which was only completed at time one in a retrospective manner, whereby participants were required to rate their experience of pleasure and interest during an outdoor experience that occurred three weeks prior.…”

Section: Conceptual Focusmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Integrating the hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives to more comprehensively understand wellbeing and pathways to wellbeing

Henderson¹,

Knight²

2012

Intnl. J. Wellbeing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Recently, the disagreement that separates hedonic from eudaimonic philosophers has spread to the science of wellbeing. This has resulted in two opposing perspectives regarding both wellbeing concepts and proposed pathways to wellbeing. Whilst contention continues, most contemporary psychologists now agree that hedonic and eudaimonic approaches each denote important aspects of wellbeing. This has led to integrated wellbeing conceptualisations, in which the combined presence of hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing components is referred to as 'flourishing'. In regard to the attainment of wellbeing, research simultaneously investigating hedonic and eudaimonic pathways suggests that a life rich in both types of pursuits is associated with the highest degree of wellbeing. Despite this assertion, previously underemphasised methodological limitations question the validity of such claims. To further progress this important area of investigation, future research directions to ameliorate said limitations are explored. It is recommended that the past tendency to contrast and compare hedonia and eudaimonia be abandoned, and instead that the inherent value of both be recognised. Time-use research methods are needed to cross-validate past findings obtained from cross-sectional research, which will make it possible to transition from purely descriptive conclusions to applied conclusions.

show abstract

“…The Personal Growth Composite (PGC) has proven to be a valid and reliable measure of eudaimonia and to be distinguishable from hedonic well-being measures. For example, in one study Vittersø and Søholt (2011) used a longitudinal design to demonstrate that the PGC measured at Time 1 predicted the experience of interest as measured approximately two months later (T2). In the same study, the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al, 1985) measured at T1 predicted pleasant episodes at T2 but no interesting episodes at T2.…”

Section: Description Of Personal Growth and Personal Growth Compositementioning

confidence: 99%