MartelaSheldon2019 Postprint

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/336663095
Clarifying the Concept of Well-Being: Psychological Need Satisfaction as the

Common Core Connecting Eudaimonic and Subjective Well-Being
Article in Review of General Psychology · October 2019

DOI: 10.1177/1089268019880886
CITATIONS READS
266 3,863
2 authors:
Frank Martela Kennon Sheldon

Aalto University University of Missouri
66 PUBLICATIONS 3,261 CITATIONS 239 PUBLICATIONS 42,770 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Frank Martela on 10 December 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Running Head: CLARIFYING THE CONCEPT OF WELL-BEING
Post-print version of an article published as: Martela, F., & Sheldon, K. M. (2019).
Clarifying the concept of well-being: Psychological need-satisfaction as the common core
connecting eudaimonic and subjective well-being. Review of General Psychology, 23(4), 458–
474.
Clarifying the concept of well-being:
Psychological need-satisfaction as the common core connecting eudaimonic and subjective well-
being
Frank Martela
Aalto University, Finland
P.O.Box 15500, FI-00076 Aalto, Finland
frank.martela@aalto.fi
Kennon M Sheldon
University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA
International Laboratory of Positive Psychology of Personality and Motivation, National
Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia

CLARIFYING THE CONCEPT OF WELL-BEING 2
Abstract:
Interest in the experience of well-being, as both a research topic and as a policy goal, has
significantly increased in recent decades. While subjective well-being (SWB) – comprised of
positive affect, low negative affect, and life satisfaction – is the most commonly used measure of
well-being, many experts have argued that another important dimension of well-being, often
referred to as Eudaimonic well-being (EWB), should be measured alongside SWB. EWB,
however, has been operationalized in at least 45 different ways, using measures of at least 63
different constructs. These diverse measurement strategies often have little overlap, leading to
discrepant results and making the findings of different studies difficult to compare. Building on
the Eudaimonic Activity Model, we propose a tripartite conception of well-being, distinguishing
between eudaimonic motives/activities, psychological need satisfaction, and SWB, arguing that
the needs category provides a parsimonious set of elements at the core of the well-being
construct. Based on the Self-determination theory claim that all human beings share evolved
psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, we show that satisfaction of all
three needs directly affect SWB and other health and wellness outcomes, can efficiently explain
the effects of various behaviors and conditions upon well-being outcomes, and are universally
impactful across cultures. We conclude that routinely measuring psychological needs alongside
SWB within national and international surveys would give policy-makers a parsimonious way to
assess eudaimonic dimensions of wellness, and provide powerful mediator variables for
explaining how various cultural, economic, and social factors concretely affect citizens’ well-
being and health.
Keywords: Eudaimonic well-being, positive functioning, psychological needs, self-
determination theory, subjective well-being

Clarifying the concept of well-being:
Psychological need-satisfaction as the common core connecting eudaimonic and subjective well-
being
Experienced well-being is used as a key outcome in several fields of psychology ranging
from clinical psychology, health psychology, developmental psychology, and geriatric
psychology to educational psychology, organizational psychology, community psychology, and
social psychology more generally. No matter the field, in examining key differences between
various populations and in evaluating the effectiveness of various interventions, how much well-
being people experience tends to be a key measure. Accordingly, how we conceptualize and
measure well-being matters a great deal for the whole field of psychology, as research has shown
that different indicators of well-being react differently to various conditions and interventions
(e.g. Diener, Ng, Harter, & Arora, 2010; Dolan, Kudrna, & Stone, 2016; Kahneman & Deaton,
2010).
Beyond psychology, also sociologists, economists, and policy researchers have
increasingly started to use measures of experienced well-being in their research. In these fields
and in politics more generally, recent decades have witnessed a broadening recognition that the
traditional economic measures of societal success should be complemented with measures of
subjectively experienced well-being, in order to truly tap into citizen wellness (Di Tella &
MacCulloch, 2006; Diener, Oishi, & Lucas, 2015; OECD, 2013; Stiglitz, Sen, & Fitoussi, 2009;
Veenhoven, 2002) and to enable a psychological analysis of public policies (Oishi, Kushlev, &
Schimmack, 2018). This shift is reflected in global cross-national well-being surveys such as the
World Values Survey and Gallup World Poll, and the many policy initiatives to measure
experienced well-being as part of nationally representative surveys, such as the well-being

module in 2013 wave of Eurostat’s EU-SILC, and the initiatives by national statistics agencies in
countries ranging from Australia and New Zealand to France, Italy, Canada and Mexico (see
Dolan, Layard, & Metcalfe, 2011; Legatum Institute, 2014; OECD, 2013). Although diverse
cultures might have different ways of understanding well-being that need to be acknowledged
(see e.g. Delle Fave & Bassi, 2009; Joshanloo, 2014), in an increasingly globalized world shared
yardsticks are needed and well-being might serve that role better than purely economic metrics.
Given that the importance of experienced well-being as a key outcome in behavioral
sciences has become widely recognized, it is unfortunate that the research community has yet to
reach a consensus on how it should be measured (Clark, 2016; Jayawickreme, Forgeard, &
Seligman, 2012). The three elements of subjective well-being (SWB) – life satisfaction, positive
affect and a lack of negative affect – are the most commonly used indicators of experienced
well-being (Busseri, 2015; Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999), and especially life satisfaction
has been used as a proxy for experienced well-being in many international surveys (e.g., Deaton,
2008; Helliwell, Layard, & Sachs, 2018). However, researchers within psychology (Delle Fave,
2016), mental health (Steptoe, Deaton, & Stone, 2015; Tennant et al., 2007), economics (Clark,
2016), economic policy (Dolan et al., 2011; National Research Council, 2013; OECD, 2013),
and developmental studies (Graham & Nikolova, 2015), have advocated for examining
dimensions of well-being that go beyond SWB. They argue that SWB is too narrow, leading us
to “neglect important aspects of positive psychological functioning” (Ryff, 1989, p. 1070). More
particularly, it is argued that “eudaimonia, which captures functional aspects of well-being, plays
a separate role to the hedonic part of well-being” (Clark, Frijters, & Shields, 2008, p. 122), and
thus indicators of SWB should be complemented with indicators of eudaimonic well-being and
psychological functioning (Keyes, 2007)1. These authors insist that life is not only about hedonic
issues of enjoyment and satisfaction, but involve also dimensions such as personal fulfillment,
fundamental need satisfaction, and realization of one’s potential. In other words, one should not
only measure whether people are ‘feeling good’, but also whether people are ‘doing well’ (New
Economics Foundation, 2008), that is, whether they are fully functioning people (Ryan & Deci,
2001). Indeed, nationally representative survey initiatives such as the well-being module in EU-
SILC and UK’s Office of National Statistics have recently included indicators to capture aspects
of well-being that go beyond SWB, which in this article will be referred to as eudaimonic well-
being (EWB).
Unfortunately, as compared to SWB, the conceptual structure of EWB is still “less well
fleshed out” (OECD, 2013, p. 32). Typically EWB is conceptualized and measured in terms of
some set or combination of psychological elements (such as autonomy, purpose, meaning, or
social connectedness). However, there is no consensus about what the key elements or sets of
elements are. Cooke et al. (2016) reviewed five commonly used multi-element instruments to
measure EWB, and discovered that not a single element could be found in common across all
five of them. More generally, as we show below, there are (currently) at least 45 different ways
of conceptualizing or measuring EWB. In the worst case when studies use different measures of
EWB that have no overlap at all, research results become essentially incomparable (Sheldon,
1
The concept of eudaimonia comes originally from the Ancient Greeks, especially the
writings of Aristotle (2012), concerning good and fulfilling ways of living, the nature of human
virtue and the ultimate causes of personal happiness (Ryan & Martela, 2016; Sheldon, 2016;
Waterman, 1993).
2016). Accordingly, many commentators have complained about the “looseness” and
“vagueness” of the EWB concept, and “lack of unification” as regards its operationalizations
(e.g. Heintzelman, 2018; Huta & Waterman, 2014; Kashdan, Biswas-Diener, & King, 2008).
In order to reduce this conceptual plurality, and to rectify the increasingly incoherent
concept of EWB, this article makes four arguments: 1) The field would benefit from settling on a
more precise way of defining the category of EWB, which provides explicit criteria for making
decisions about what constructs to include as part of EWB; 2) The path towards such definition
starts with splitting well-being into three clearly defined sub-categories, namely, eudaimonic
motives and activities, psychological need-satisfaction, and subjective well-being, with the first
two representing the eudaimonic dimensions of well-being; 3) The psychological need-
satisfaction category holds the most promise as a “common core” of the EWB construct,
mediating the link between salubrious activities and conditions on the one hand, and SWB on the
other hand; and 4) Self-determination theory (SDT) currently provides the best-validated and
most parsimonious set of fundamentally satisfying psychosocial experiences, by making a strong
empirical case for the existence of three basic psychological needs, the fulfillment of which is
essential for human wellness: Namely, autonomy (the sense of volition and being the owner of
one’s behavior), competence (the sense of mastery, efficacy, and accomplishment in behavior),
and relatedness (the sense of being in mutually caring relationships with others). These needs
(discussed in more detail below) are not only important as such, but also explain a large
proportion of the variance in SWB, by mediating the effects of more distal behavioral and
contextual factors upon SWB (Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2017).
We address each of our four arguments in sequence, below. Our overall goal is to offer a
theoretical framework delineating the key categories of EWB, while also distinguishing EWB
from SWB. We believe this will catalyze new empirical research to determine which proposed
elements of EWB empirically fulfill the criteria for inclusion within the EWB category, and
which elements do not. The paper thus aims, not to provide a final theory of EWB, but rather, to
suggest a categorical approach to EWB that allows for a more constrained way of constructing
such a theory in the future.
The expanding number of elements of eudaimonic well-being
While well-being is most typically conceptualized as subjective well-being (SWB), a
category that most commonly includes positive affect, negative affect, and life satisfaction
(Busseri, 2018; Diener, 2012; Diener et al., 1999), again, many researchers have argued that life
satisfaction and affect should be complemented with a third separate dimension: namely,
eudaimonic well-being (EWB; Dolan et al., 2011; National Research Council, 2013; OECD,
2013; Steptoe et al., 2015; Tennant et al., 2007). Theories of EWB tend to identify multiple
distinct elements of the fully-functioning state they envision. This is clearly visible even if we
look only at eight of the more popular meta-conceptualizations of EWB (see Table 1).
Table 1
The elements of EWB as posited by several influential theories
Psychological well-being (Ryff, 1989) Flourishing Scale (Diener et al., 2010)

Self-acceptance Purpose and meaning
Positive relations Supportive relationships
Autonomy Engagement
Environmental mastery Contribution to others
Purpose in life Competence
Personal growth Optimism
Being respected
Basic needs from SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000) Being a good person
Autonomy
Competence PERMA theory of well-being (Seligman, 2011)
Relatedness Positive emotions
Engagement
Psychological functioning in Warwick-Edinburgh Meaning
mental well-being scale (Tennant et al. 2007)
Energy Accomplishment
Clear thinking Relationships
Self acceptance
Personal development Mental Health as Flourishing (Huppert & So, 2013)
Competence Positive emotion
Autonomy Emotional stability
Vitality
Positive functioning (New Economic Foundation, Optimism
2008)
Competence Resilience
Autonomy Self-esteem
Engagement Engagement
Meaning and purpose Competence
Meaning
The Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Well-Being Positive relationships
(Waterman et al. 2010)
Self-discovery
Development of best potentials
Purpose and meaning in life
Effort in pursuing excellence
Intense involvement in activities
Activities as personally expressive
Table 2
Other multi-element operationalizations of EWB and the specific elements they measured (references in supplement 1)
EWB (Joshanloo, 2016) Eudaimonic SWB (Nikolaev 2018) EWB (Lee et al. 2018)
Psychological well-being Self-worth Prosocial impact
Social well-being Positive engagement and flow Work engagement
EWB (Frazier et al. 2012) EWB (Lewis et al. 2014) EWB (Hansen 2015)
Self-acceptance Personal growth Feelings of vitality
Personal growth Subjective vitality Personal flourishing
Meaning in life Self-determination Social relations
Positive relations with others Life engagement Meaning in life
EWB (Mackenzie, Karaoylas, & Starzyk, Present-eudaimonic scale (Vowinckel et EWB (Sobol-Kwapinska, Jankowski &
2017) al. 2017) Przepiorka, 2016)
Purpose in life Flow Basic needs satisfaction
Personal growth Mindfulness Authenticity
Eudaimonic measures (Clark & Senik, EWB (Toma, Hamer, & Shankar, 2015) Eudaimonia at work (Turban & Yan,
2011) 2016)
Vitality Control Personal growth
Resilience Autonomy Purpose
Positive functioning Self-realisation Social significance
EWB (Thrash et al. 2010) EWB (Kiaei & Reio 2014) EWB (Bauer & McAdams 2010)
Vitality Meaning in life Psychosocial maturity
Self-actualization Pleasure of engagement Subjective well-being
EWB (Vittersø & Søholt, 2011) EWB (Di Fabio & Palazzeschi, 2015) EWB (Passmore & Howell, 2014)
Feeling of interest Life meaning Elevating experiences
Personal growth Authenticity Sense of meaning
Eudaimonic happiness (Maltby, Day & EWB (Yukhymenko-Lescroart & Sharma, Eudaimonic feeling states (Vittersø &
Barber, 2005) 2018) Dahl 2013)
Long-term happiness Sense of purpose Engagement
EWB (Klar & Kasser, 2009) Eudaimonic (Clark 2016 BHPS data) EWB (Blasi et al. 2013)
Meaning in life Energy Health and physical equilibrium
Self-actualization Measure of control Serenity and mental equilibrium
Basic needs satisfaction Autonomy Daily life satisfaction
Hope Meaning Material satisfaction
Agency Doing new things Social placement
EWB (Sedikides et al. 2016) EWB (White et al. 2017) EWB (Graham & Nikolova 2005)
Subjective vitality Worthwhile activities Meaning and purpose
Eudaimonia (Waterman 1993) EWB (Berrios et al. 2018) EWB (Bauer et al. 2008)
Personal expressiveness Eudaimonic motives for activities Ego development
EWB (Joshanloo 2018) EWB (Thege et al. 2017) EWB (Nelson et al. 2014)
Learning Life meaning Flow
Social support Sense of coherence Autonomy
Respect Competence
Efficacy EWB (Kashdan, Uswatte & Julian, 2006) Relatedness
Freedom Positive self-regard Meaning in life
Helping strangers Rewarding social activity
Volunteering Opportunity for personal growth EWB (Fowers et al. 2010)
Purpose in life
EWB (OECD 2013) Self-actualization
Purpose Positive relationships
Table 3
The 63 separate elements used in different operationalizations of EWB
Accomplishment Measure of control

Activities as personally expressive Mindfulness
Agency Optimism
Authenticity Personal expressiveness
Autonomy Personal flourishing
Basic needs satisfaction Personal growth/development
Being a good person Positive emotions
Being respected Positive functioning
Clear thinking Prosocial impact / Contribution to others
Competence / Environmental mastery Psychosocial maturity
Daily life satisfaction Purpose in life
Development of best potentials Relatedness / Positive relations
Doing new things Resilience
Efficacy Respect
Effort in pursuing excellence Rewarding social activity
Ego development Self-acceptance
Elevating experiences Self-actualization
Emotional stability Self-determination
Energy Self-discovery
Engagement Self-esteem
Eudaimonic motives for activities Self-realisation
Feeling of interest Self-worth / positive self-regard
Flow Sense of coherence
Freedom Serenity and mental equilibrium
Health and physical equilibrium Social placement
Helping strangers Social significance
Hope Social support
Intense involvement in activities Subjective well-being
Learning Vitality
Long-term happiness Volunteering
Material satisfaction Worthwhile activities
Meaning in life
Taking these in turn, Carol Ryff (1989) proposed, based on a qualitative analysis of the
theoretical literature on positive psychological functioning, that there are six core elements of
psychological well-being (PWB) that must be present in a well-lived life: self-acceptance,

positive relations with others, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life, and personal
growth. Her PWB scales have been widely used in research and they have provided a healthy
challenge to prior tendencies to conceptualize well-being primarily as SWB (Diener, 1984,
1994). Self-determination theory has postulated three basic psychological needs – autonomy,
competence, and relatedness – as key psychosocial conditions for well-being, integrity, and
growth, claims that are now well established empirically (Ryan & Deci, 2000; 2017). Diener et
al. (2010) generated a model of psychosocial flourishing that aimed to capture the essential
elements from a number of previous theories including purpose, supportive relationships,
engagement, contribution to others, competence, optimism, being respected and being a good
person. Waterman et al. (2010) attempted to return to the roots of Aristotelian philosophy,
defining and operationalizing EWB as having six elements: self-discovery, perceived
development of one’s best potentials, a sense of purpose and meaning in life, investment of
significant effort in pursuit of excellence, intense involvement in activities, and enjoyment of
activities as personally expressive. Huppert and So (2013) generated their list of flourishing
elements by looking at the symptoms of generalized anxiety and depression and identifying
mirror opposites of each symptom. Their ten elements include positive emotion, emotional
stability, vitality, optimism, resilience, self-esteem, engagement, competence, meaning, and
positive relationships. Seligman’s PERMA model includes five different elements of well-being:
positive emotions, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accomplishments (Kern, Waters,
Adler, & White, 2015; Seligman, 2011). Finally, the New Economic Foundation (2008)
proposed that positive functioning is about competence, autonomy, engagement, and meaning
and purpose, while the Warwick-Edinburg Mental Well-being approach measures psychological
functioning using the elements of: energy, clear thinking, self acceptance, personal development,
competence and autonomy (Tennant et al., 2007).
Besides the more widely-used sets of EWB constructs shown in Table 1, the EWB meta-
construct has been operationalized in many other ways as well. Building on four recent reviews
(Cooke et al., 2016; Heintzelman, 2018; Huta & Waterman, 2014; Sheldon, 2018) and a
keyword search on PsycINFO, we were able to identify, beyond the eight more influential
models already mentioned, 37 other multi-facet operationalizations of EWB (see Table 2). This
means that at least 45 different ways of operationalizing the overarching construct of EWB have
been used. Scrutiny of Table 2 shows that the most commonly measured single elements include
meaning/purpose, competence, autonomy, relatedness, and engagement. However to date,
researchers have operationally defined 63 distinct constructs as elements of EWB, ranging from
emotional stability, serenity, and freedom, to mindfulness, resilience, and respect (for the full
list, see Table 3). Some of these elements reference attitudes (e.g. hope, optimism), some
reference motivations (e.g. effort in pursuing excellence), some reference behaviors (e.g.
volunteering, doing new things), some reference feelings (e.g. energy, feeling of interest,
emotional stability), and some reference adaptive functioning (e.g. resilience, accomplishment).
Thus, the vagueness of the EWB category seems to permit almost any operationalization
at all, as long as the measure has a healthy or appealing sound or flavor. Indeed, a recent review
of measures of EWB concluded that “there was no consensus regarding the critical components
of this conceptualization of well-being” (Cooke et al., 2016, p. 746) – an untenable situation if
the aim is to do comparable and cumulative science. Heintzelman (2018, p. 4) also expressed
concerns about the “diverse array of conceptualizations” complicating any comparisons, and
Huta and Waterman (2014, p. 1428) report that the “multiplicity of conceptual and operational
definitions of eudaimonia and hedonia” has led to “highly discrepant results”, for example the
state-level correlations between hedonia and eudaimonia have ranged from -.3 to .8 depending
on the chosen measures.
In sum, to avoid a ‘bracket creep’ where an ever-expanding number of constructs become
encompassed within an increasingly ambiguous construct of eudaimonic well-being (Kashdan &
Steger, 2011; Sheldon, 2016), the field needs more clear criteria for what counts as a key
element of EWB and what not. We believe the path toward such clarity starts with splitting
conceptions of well-being into three more clearly-defined sub-categories.
Three categories of well-being: Eudaimonic motives/activities, psychological need-
satisfaction, and subjective well-being
In general, there are at least three different schools within conceptualizations of
eudaimonic well-being. First, there are the objectivists who claim that eudaimonia is not about
subjective feelings but rather refers to an objective quality of a life (see e.g., Haybron, 2008;
Kristjánsson, 2010). There are certain qualities inherent to good living, and when those qualities
are present in a person’s way of living, that life is seen as eudaimonistic. Aristotle himself would
be in this camp as for Aristotle (2012, p. 15, 13) eudaimonia was not a type of well-being but
about “living well and good action”, more particularly, “an activity of soul in accord with
virtue.” This involves whether the person has, in fact, been able to exercise the essential and
admirable virtues in that life to the highest standards of human capacity. Objectivists are thus
“trying to give accounts of what it is to live well” rather than provide a theory of well-being
(Haybron, 2008, p. 171). Second, there is a school emphasizing the hedonic-vs-eudaimonic
distinction, which sees that this distinction can be drawn at various levels: There are hedonic and
eudaimonic motives, hedonic and eudaimonic activities, and hedonic versus eudaimonic
relationships, as well as hedonic and eudaimonic feelings (e.g. Huta, 2016; Huta & Waterman,
2014). Third, there are the proponents of an eudaimonic activity conceptualization, who see that
there are certain motives and activities that are eudaimonic in nature and that contribute to
subjective well-being (e.g. Sheldon, 2016). Rather than identifying hedonic and eudaimonic
elements simultaneously existing within any category, this approach assigns eudaimonic and
hedonic concepts to somewhat different categories. In this article, we want to develop further
this third approach to EWB, coming back to its implications for the two other approaches in the
discussion.
As table 3 revealed, the various conceptualizations of EWB mix together very different
types of elements: Behaviors, intentions, feelings, and experiences (Huta & Waterman, 2014;
Sheldon, 2018). This failure to “divide the construct of well-being into its component parts”,
thus conflating inputs, processes, and outcomes together is according to Henriques et al. (2014,
p. 11) a key reason behind the looseness and broadness of EWB. Thus for example, rather than
using everything from “volunteering” to “respect” to “material satisfaction” to “clear thinking”
and more (see table 3) as indicators of EWB, it seems essential to bring some new focus to the
construct by identifying some more clearly delineated ‘core’ of EWB upon which future studies
of EWB can concentrate. Accordingly, we suggest that the first step in clarifying EWB and well-
being more generally is to make a distinction between three more clearly defined sub-categories
within the broader construct of well-being: namely, eudaimonic motives and activities,
psychological need-satisfaction, and subjective well-being.
This suggestion is based on the recently advanced “Eudaimonic Activity Model” (EAM),
(Sheldon, 2016, 2018). As shown in Figure 1, the EAM first distinguishes between “doing well”
and “feeling well.” Feeling well is about experienced well-being and how a particular life feels
from the inside. Feeling well thus aims to cover the various ways a person can feel or evaluate
one’s life as positive or negative. Thus it is about ”good mental states, including all of the
various evaluations, positive and negative, that people make of their lives, and the affective
reactions of people to their experiences” (OECD, 2013, p. 29). At the same time, several
researchers have emphasized that eudaimonia has an active and conative dimension to it,
referring in its Aristotelian conception to how a person is living one’s life, and to various
motivations and activities that lead to feeling well (Huta & Ryan, 2010; Ryan & Martela, 2016;
Sheldon, 2016; Sheldon, Corcoran, & Prentice, 2018). Accordingly, “doing well” should be
recognized as an important part of eudaimonia, and also to human well-being most broadly
understood. ‘Being’ in well-being is, after all, a verb. Thus well-being, in our model, is both
about ‘doing well’ and about ‘feeling well’ (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 The eudaimonic activity model and the distinction between doing well and feeling
well
The feeling well category can be further divided into two sub-categories: psychological
need-satisfaction, and SWB. Constructs in the psychological need satisfaction sub-category are
typically causally linked to constructs in the SWB category. SWB, defined as a category of well-
being that includes general and context-free feelings and evaluations of life as good or bad,
positive or negative, thus operates as the key outcome in the EAM model to which both
eudaimonic motives/activities and psychological need-satisfaction contribute (Sheldon et al.,
2018). As Su et al. (2014, p. 254) argue, “SWB can be conceived of as an internal barometer of
‘how life is going’ – it is a gauge of the extent to which other aspects of psychological well-
being or needs are fulfilled.” Lyubomirsky, King, and Diener (2005) provided a comprehensive
review of the tangible benefits of positive emotions and SWB, effects that include better
marriages, higher income, and a longer life span. In other words, SWB is not just a trivial “feel-
good” measure; rather, it indexes a state of mind that plays a critical role in peoples’ subsequent
adaptive functioning (Fredrickson, 2001). This provides a primary justification for including
SWB within national surveys and other surveys, as an important indicator of societal health and
predictor of future functioning.
According to the EAM, a key characteristic of SWB is that the feelings and evaluations
examined are relatively free of “psychosocial content.” By psychosocial content we refer to
evaluative adjectives that already tell something specific and substantial about the target’s
relation with oneself and the world. SWB only answers the question of how the subject is
feeling, but not the question why the subject is feeling so, or what he or she is doing. SWB
questions such as ‘how do you feel’ or ‘are you satisfied’ pre-suppose no causes, whereas any
questionnaire item that examines subject’s relationships with others or ways to engage with the
world already introduces substantial psychosocial content into the equation (Sheldon, 2018). We
argue that SWB should be kept free of psychosocial content, to the greatest degree possible. One
of the upsides of excluding psychosocial content from this important criterion measure is that it
helps to keep indicators within this category free of conceptual bias toward any particular
lifestyle, form of governance, or cultural/religious belief system. Accordingly, it can help
policymakers in estimating weights to give to various investments into quality of life (Diener,
2012) and serve as a relatively neutral and objective criterion variable concerning the happiness-
relevance of particular lifestyles, forms of governance, or cultural/religious belief systems.
Although the feeling of SWB is a critical outcome variable, it is not the only important
variable for understanding human thriving. What the eudaimonic conception of well-being gets
right is that certain ways of living and doing are consistently more conducive to well-being and
human flourishing than other ways of living (Ryan & Martela, 2016; Sheldon, 2016). In other
words, some values, goals, motivations, orientations, and practices tend to be beneficial for the
person and others less beneficial, in terms of outcomes such as well-being, health, integrity,
personal growth, and social adjustment (Huta & Waterman, 2014; Ryan, Huta, & Deci, 2008).
Eudaimonia, as originally conceptualized by Aristotle (2012), and as conceptualized by
researchers within SDT (Ryan, Curren, & Deci, 2013; Ryan et al., 2008; Ryan & Martela, 2016),
is about a life well lived rather than a subjective state. Accordingly, based on the EAM (Sheldon,
2016, 2018), we suggest that a key part of eudaimonia is doing well through engaging in
eudaimonic motives and activities that include those values, goals, motivations, orientations, and
practices that have been empirically shown to consistently bring forth SWB, particularly within
longitudinal studies of changes in SWB.
The rationale for the EAM can be clarified via the classical distinction between conative,
affective and cognitive dimensions of the mind, with the conative referring to those aspects of
human psychology that “propel or move the organism” (Mayer, Chabot, & Carlsmith, 1997, p.
31). Keeping this distinction in mind, eudaimonic motives refer to those conative processes
known to contribute to positive cognitive evaluations and affective experiences. In other words,
one important way to identify which proposed goals, values, motivations, orientations, and
societal practices might be considered eudaimonic and which not, is to examine whether or not
they contribute to SWB2. It is important to note that the eudaimonic motives/activities category
does not refer directly to experienced well-being (see figure 1), because activities in this
category “involve well-doing, not well-being; they are conative processes, not affective
processes” (Sheldon, 2018, p. 126). Based on the present distinction between doing well and
feeling well, eudaimonic motives/activities are best seen as activities and motivations that tend
to lead to feeling well, rather than being included as parts of experienced well-being itself (see
figure 1).
There is, however, also a third category of well-being that is positioned midway between
eudaimonic motives/activities, and subjective well-being (see figure 1). We call it here
psychological need-satisfaction, seeing it as comprised of specific types of satisfying
experiences a person can get from one’s interaction with one’s environment, and that are
presumed to be essential for the psychological health and well-being of the person (Ryan &
Deci, 2017; Sheldon, 2018). This category concerns positive experiential constructs that are not
2
If a proposed eudaimonic motive or activity does not contribute to SWB, a strong
argument should be provided as to why not. Of course, SWB, does not have to be the only
criterion variable. One could also examine whether or not certain conative processes bring forth
optimal physical health, work performance, creativity, and other desirable outcomes.
conative, but that do involve some psychosocial content. Many theories of EWB include this
type of element, such as experiencing autonomy, having a sense of environmental mastery or
competence, feeling one is able to contribute to others, or feeling one is having high sense of
relatedness with other people (see Table 1). These are experiential rather than conative
constructs as they tell not about the subject’s intentions or activities, but how the subject
experiences his or her relation with the environment. Using relatedness as an example, it is not
only about how many minutes a person objectively spends with other people, but about whether
a person experiences that there are mutually caring relationships in his or her life. Thus, like
SWB, this category is about feeling well rather than doing well. At the same time, unlike SWB,
these elements bring in psychosocial content by telling us something specific about the
organism’s relation to its environment. Having high or low relatedness, for example, tells
something specific about a person’s relation to other people. These experiences are part of the
larger category of experienced well-being, but are not part of the sub-category of subjective
well-being; they are best seen as comprising their own sub-category (figure 1).
By calling them innately satisfying experiences we want to emphasize the fact that these
are psychological factors that are in some sense essential to human wellness given the kind of
organisms we humans are. In other words, the ultimate reason for why these experiences are
satisfying is because the desire to acquire these experiences has been adaptive to human beings
in the evolutionary sense (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Sheldon, 2011). Based on a line of research that
has aimed to identify basic needs and fundamental human motivations (Baumeister & Leary,
1995; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Sheldon, 2011; Sheldon, Elliot, Kim, & Kasser, 2001), it
appears that there are certain psychosocial experiences that have proven so necessary for the
survival and thriving of the organism that humans have developed robust psychological
mechanisms that ensure that individuals seek out these experiences and are emotionally
rewarded when able to obtain these experiences (Sheldon, 2011).
In other words, the proposition is that there are ”specifiable psychological and social
nutrients which, when satisfied within the interpersonal and cultural contexts of an individual’s
development, facilitate growth, integrity, and well-being” (Ryan & Deci, 2017, p. 82). These
psychological experiences thus function as kind of “nutrients” that are essential for the growth,
integrity, and psychological well-being of the individual (Ryan & Deci, 2017, p. 10). They also
function as key predictors of SWB, mediating the relationship between various environmental
contexts and motivated activities, and SWB. Longitudinal studies have indeed demonstrated that
while concurrent SWB tends not to predict later boosts in EWB, concurrent EWB has been
shown to predict later boosts in SWB in both US and Japan (Joshanloo, 2018a, 2018b).
Direct support for this model where psychological need satisfaction mediates the
relations between eudaimonic motives/activities and SWB is found in three-wave fully
longitudinal research studies as currently recommended for mediation testing (e.g. Maxwell &
Cole, 2007; Maxwell, Cole, & Mitchell, 2011) that have shown how various T1 variables predict
changes in SWB at T3, mediated by changes in need satisfaction at T2. Such studies have shown
that need satisfaction mediates the relation between supportive teaching style and engagement in
high school (Jang, Kim, & Reeve, 2016), need satisfaction mediates the relation between coach
motivational style and engagement in youth sports (Curran, Hill, Ntoumanis, Hall, & Jowett,
2016), need satisfaction fully mediates the relations between materialism and both SWB and
depression (Wang, Liu, Jiang, & Song, 2017), and need frustration mediates the relation between
self-critical perfectionism and binge eating symptoms (Boone, Vansteenkiste, Soenens, der
Kaap-Deeder, & Verstuyf, 2014). Furthermore, other longitudinal research has shown that
psychological need satisfaction mediates the SWB effects of achieving self-concordant versus
less concordant goals (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999), the SWB effects of having intrinsic versus
extrinsic aspirations (Niemiec, Ryan, & Deci, 2009), the SWB effects of motive dispositions
toward affiliation and achievement (Sheldon & Schüler, 2011), and cross-sectional research has
shown that the needs mediate the SWB effects of having one’s “social character” traits be
consistent with one’s “unguarded self” traits (Sheldon, Gunz, & Schachtman, 2012), the SWB
effects of having correspondence between actual time use and ideal time use and having a more
balanced lifestyle (Sheldon, Cummins, & Kamble, 2010), and the SWB effects of prosocial
behavior (Martela & Ryan, 2016a; Weinstein & Ryan, 2010). Furthermore, assigning
participants to directly pursue goals related to psychological need satisfaction has been shown to
improve their SWB (Sheldon, Abad, et al., 2010), and a 2x2x2 experimental manipulation of
autonomy, competence, and relatedness support in a game-learning context showed that all three
need factors had main effects on intrinsic motivation, positive mood and game performance
(Sheldon & Filak, 2008).
In proposing that psychological need-satisfaction is a key aspect of EWB, we join forces
with many other researchers who have seen psychological needs as a key part of EWB (e.g.
Heintzelman, 2018). For example Dolan et al. (2011, p. 9), Kapteyn et al. (2015, p. 628), and
Clark (2016) have all referred to underlying psychological needs, when defining and discussing
EWB. Also OECD (2013 see especially p. 32) guidelines note that psychological functioning
draws at least partially from the idea of there being universal needs. Several studies have also
used indicators of psychological needs alongside indicators of SWB in large-scale cross-national
studies, sometimes as outcome variables (Conzo, Aassve, Fuochi, & Mencarini, 2017), but more
typically aiming to examine whether these needs contribute to SWB (Diener, Ng, et al., 2010;
Ng & Diener, 2014; Tay & Diener, 2011). However, while these approaches have suggested that
EWB is partly about psychological needs, we are here making a more specific suggestion about
there being a clearly defined sub-category within EWB that is about such basic needs.
The Four Criteria for Identifying Psychological Needs
Given that this “core” category of well-being refers to a limited set of psychosocial
contents and tries to derive strong conclusions about what types of experiences are good for all
human beings, researchers need to be very conservative about what elements are allowed to be
included into this category. In other words, to arrive at an accurate and parsimonious list of
needs, we need clear empirical inclusion criteria that any proposed element has to fulfill in order
to be considered a basic need. We suggest – based on research within self-determination theory
(Deci & Ryan, 2000; Martela & Ryan, 2016b; Ryan & Deci, 2017; Sheldon, 2011) – that there
are four key criteria that any suggested need should at least fulfill in order to be considered a
serious contestant for a basic psychological need:
1) Mood: The satisfaction of the psychological need should be directly connected to
positive affective consequences and momentary SWB
The satisfaction of any basic need should be rewarding in the sense of resulting in
increased positive affect and other indicators of well-being (Sheldon et al., 2001). As Ryan and
Deci (2004, p. 22) have argued ”to qualify as a need, a motivating force must have a direct
relation to well-being.” Just like successful attainment of food is rewarded by specific positive
experiences such as relief, satiety, and quenching, the successful attainment of a psychological
need should similarly be rewarded by positive feelings (Sheldon, 2011). These associations
should be direct and not mediated. Furthermore, given the innate nature of psychological needs,
their satisfaction should be associated with well-being “irrespective of whether they are valued
by the individuals or their cultures” (Ryan & Deci, 2017, p. 10). Similarly, the lack and
frustration of the need should be consistently and directly associated with indicators of ill-being
(Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013). The need thus should have consistent and direct relations with
well-being indicators when satisfied, and ill-being indicators when frustrated.
2) Wellness: The chronic satisfaction of the psychological need should lead to long-
term benefits in health, growth, and adaptation
The reason we have certain basic psychological needs is that they orient us toward
certain psychosocial resources that were “entailed in thriving during our species’ history” (Ryan
& Deci, 2017, p. 84). The needs are psychological structures that guide humans toward certain
conditions and behaviors that have been adaptive to our species. Given that any suggested
psychological need should be adaptive in the long run (Sheldon, 2011; Deci & Ryan, 2000), its
presence in a person’s life should lead to various long-term benefits in terms of well-being,
health, social adaptation, and success (i.e. survival and successful reproduction). Thus a
suggested need should be empirically linked to various long-term indicators of wellness such as
better physical health, longevity, resilience, better mental health and well-being, and success in
various arenas of life such as the work, educational or social sphere.
3) Mediation: The need should explain the well-being benefits of many factors
including behavioral orientations and activities and various environmental
conditions
Given the role of basic needs in describing key satisfactions an organism can get from its
relation with the environment, it occupies a middle space between conative and environmental
influences on well-being and content-free SWB (see figure 1). Thus any proposed need should
be “essential to explain or interpret empirical phenomena” (Ryan & Deci, 2017, p. 251).
Specifically, as suggested by the EAM (Sheldon, 2018), the needs should mediate the link
between various eudaimonic motives/activities and SWB. Thus they provide a key explanation
for why certain activities and orientations typically lead to SWB. Furthermore, the needs should
serve as mediators that explain the connection between various supportive or depriving
environmental conditions and subjective well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Thus, whether we
look at supportive work environments, educational environments, or even political systems, the
needs should be able to explain why certain environments lead to more motivation, growth and
well-being, than other environments.
4) Universality: The need should be universally operational across cultures
Given that innate psychological needs are said to be connected to human nature, and not
to any particular individual or cultural patterns or preferences, any suggested need should be
universal: It should be have effects around the world “across cultural contexts” and across
national boundaries (Ryan & Deci, 2017, p. 85). Thus, for all the three criteria listed above, one
should be able to find robust cross-cultural evidence that the criteria are not only satisfied within
one culture, but in most cultures and individuals no matter whether they live in modern post-
industrialized metropolises or in more primitive hunter-gatherer societies. Accordingly, an
important part of the empirical rationale behind a basic psychological need is to show that it is
robustly operational across a wide range of cultural contexts.
Other criteria
Beyond these four essential criteria for a psychological need, a number of other criteria
have been suggested that can further strengthen the case for arguing that an experience is indeed
is a psychological need (see especially Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Ryan & Deci, 2017). First,
there can be no basic psychological need if it has not been somehow selected for through
evolution. Accordingly, one should “preferably give a plausible evolutionary rationale for the
existence of the need” (Martela & Ryan, 2016b, p. 761). Second, a need should be operational
not only during adulthood, but “across developmental periods”, and thus we should find
evidence on its functioning in infants and young children (Ryan & Deci, 2017, p. 85; Sheldon,
2011). Furthermore, a need should direct cognitive processing, elicit goal-oriented behavior
designed to satisfy it, affect a broad variety of behaviors, have implications beyond immediate
psychological functioning, and produce effects readily under all but adverse conditions, as
suggested by Baumeister and Leary (1995). Also, the candidate need must specify content, in the
sense of pointing to “specific experiences and behaviors” in contrast to very general categories
such as psychological health (Ryan & Deci, 2017 p. 251). Finally, the case for a psychological
need would be significantly strengthened if one could pinpoint specific neurological or hormonal
mechanisms underlying it, or if one would be able to show that the same need is functional in
primates or other close relatives of the human species.
Autonomy, competence, and relatedness as current leading candidates within the
psychological need-satisfaction category
Given the above-given criteria for a psychological need, the obvious next question is
what candidates best fulfill these criteria. A full review of the evidence behind every proposed
candidate, however, goes beyond the scope of this paper as each candidate would require a
lengthy examination of its own. However, we suggest that currently the most comprehensive
evidence has been built behind the three needs specified by self-determination theory (Deci &
Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2017; Sheldon, 2011): autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
Autonomy is about a sense of volition and an internal locus of causality, competence is about a
sense of mastery, effectance and efficacy, while relatedness is about the sense of having
mutually caring relationships in one’s life. It is worth noting that in our review of various
operationalizations of EWB (see Tables 1 and 2), autonomy, competence, and relatedness were
among the constructs that were most often measured as part of EWB.
Research within SDT has demonstrated that the three needs for autonomy, competence,
and relatedness are related to various indicators of well-being both when we look at the matter
on a between-person or a within-person level (Ryan, Bernstein, & Brown, 2010; Sheldon &
Niemiec, 2006), and even when controlling for the influence of each other and for other potential
need candidates (Martela & Ryan, 2016b; Sheldon et al., 2001). Furthermore, need frustration –
the situation where one or more of these three needs are deprived – is consistently related to
various indicators of ill-being such as depression, negative affect, and burnout (Bartholomew,
Ntoumanis, Ryan, Bosch, & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, 2011; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013).
Also the mediating role of the three needs have been confirmed in a number of studies. In
introducing our model we already cited several studies that showed how the satisfaction of these
needs mediates the relation between various types of eudaimonic motives/activities and
subjective well-being. In addition, the three needs have also been shown to mediate the relation
between various contextual factors and SWB. They mediate, for example, the SWB effects of
attending a student-centered compared to a traditional law school (Sheldon & Krieger, 2007), the
SWB effects of organizational support and controlling behaviors in a work setting (Gillet,
Fouquereau, Forest, Brunault, & Colombat, 2012), the link between supportive versus
controlling learning environments and learning outcomes such as engagement and achievement
in high school (Jang, Reeve, Ryan, & Kim, 2009), the relation between higher socio-economic
status and better physical and mental health (González, Swanson, Lynch, & Williams, 2016),
and the relation between higher income inequality and lower self-rated health (Di Domenico &
Fournier, 2014). All in all, the mediating role of the three basic psychological needs has been
tested in various contexts from work, education and leisure to sports coaching and computer
games (see Ryan & Deci, 2017).
In line with criterion 4 above, the main results have also been replicated cross-culturally
in various countries (Chen et al., 2015; Chirkov, Ryan, Kim, & Kaplan, 2003; Sheldon et al.,
2001), including a Gallup World Poll involving 155 countries that showed how indicators for
each of these three needs predicted SWB quite equally across the world regions (Tay & Diener,
2011), and a meta-analysis of 36 samples showing no difference in the size of correlation
between autonomy and SWB in US and East Asian countries (Yu, Levesque-Bristol, & Maeda,
2018). A particularly interesting cross-national study of 63 countries showed that the link
between national wealth and three key indicators of ill-being (burnout, anxiety, and general
health) seemed to be fully explained by how much autonomy and individualism was valued in
those countries (Fischer & Boer, 2011). Furthermore, a cross-cultural study of values utilizing
data from over 60 different countries concluded that “values associated with autonomy,
relatedness, and competence show a universal pattern of high importance and high consensus”
(Fischer & Schwartz, 2011, p. 1127), underscoring their importance as something people across
cultures value.
Thus we follow SDT in proposing that currently the strongest empirical case as regards
innate psychological need-satisfactions concern the proposed needs for autonomy, competence,
and relatedness. However, given that there are clear empirical criteria for determining whether
something is a need or not, the list must be kept open. Research might in the future identify some
other needs as well, alongside the three needs. For example, safety/security (Rasskazova,
Ivanova, & Sheldon, 2016; Sheldon et al., 2001) and beneficence as a need to have a positive
impact on other people (Martela & Ryan, 2016b) both seem to exhibit some characteristics of a
need, although not enough evidence has been gathered to make a definitive conclusion of their
status. Also other candidates such as self-actualization and meaning have been tested, but found
empirically wanting (Sheldon et al., 2001). Again, it seems wise to remain conservative, and
only accept a psychosocial experience as a true basic need when a robust set of empirical
findings demonstrate that the candidate need can indeed fulfill all four criteria for a basic
psychological need.
Conclusion
Well-being can be examined on many levels from very narrow, focusing mainly on
momentary pleasures and pains of individuals (e.g. Kahneman, 1999), to very holistic, taking
into account the person as part of a group and their shared material and social environments,
cultural value frameworks (e.g. Henriques et al., 2014), and long-term temporal perspectives.
Eudaimonic well-being is located in between these extremes, focusing on the individual but on
factors that go beyond mere subjective feelings to include both behavioral factors and need
satisfaction related factors. While research on how to define and measure well-being has taken
many important steps forward in the last decades, the nature and limits of eudaimonic well-being
is still poorly understood. To advance this debate, we have here suggested that we need to divide
well-being into more clearly defined sub-categories. In addition to the category of SWB, we
have discussed the category of eudaimonic motives/activities, and the category of psychological
need-satisfactions, arguing that the latter category should be seen both as a core outcome of
doing well, and a core aspect of feeling well. The goal within this middle category is to identify
basic psychological needs that are essential for human well-being, growth, integrity and long-
term success in various life dimensions. We have argued that the three needs suggested by SDT,
namely, autonomy, competence, and relatedness, have the best support so far to be included into
this category.
As regards the eudaimonic motives/activities category, we have argued that it is not part
of feeling well as such. Yet it captures an important point that many thinkers have made (Huta &
Waterman, 2014; Ryan et al., 2008). In examining what makes life good for a human being, we
are typically not only interested in experienced well-being, but more broadly about a life well
lived – and many philosophical and some psychological accounts argue that happiness or
experienced well-being is a mere “by-product of a life that is well-lived” (Ryff & Singer, 1998,
p. 5). Thus philosophers such as Aristotle were mainly interested in examining the ways of
living that are good and eudaimonic – and experienced well-being served merely as one of the
symptoms of such good ways of living (Ryan & Martela, 2016). Thus, from a practical point of
view, identifying goals, attitudes, and practices that belong to the eudaimonic motives/activities
category can offer much needed guidance for people in making various life choices.
Accordingly, we see research into eudaimonic motives/activities as an important research topic
on its own.
As noted in the introduction, there are three main schools or traditions in the EWB
literature: an objectivist tradition, focusing on activities and behaviors deemed as valuable as
such, whether or not they contribute to positive feelings; a bi-modal tradition, focusing on
eudaimonic versus hedonic variants within a wide range of categories, such as goals, values, or
feeling; and finally, the current approach, which suggests that subjective well-being is not
directly eudaimonic, but can be used as one of the main criterion through which to determine
which motives, goals, and activities are actually eudaimonic. Instead of focusing on the contrast
between eudaimonic and hedonic activities, this approach mainly focuses on better identifying
what eudaimonic activities are. This approach does not require a distinction within feelings of
well-being as we see that ‘hedonic’ feelings such as joy are often also the result of eudaimonic
activities, although they can naturally be produced by other things as well (see Sheldon, 2016).
We believe that these three approaches are not directly opposed to each other but rather serve
different research goals. For example, although drawing distinctions within the category of
subjective feelings is not necessary for the current framework of EWB, this is an important
research topic on its own right.
While this article has focused on individually experienced well-being, it is important to
acknowledge that well-being can be examined on many levels, from individually experienced
well-being to interpersonal and community well-being to societal well-being (Prilleltensky et al.,
2015). In these latter approaches, well-being is sometimes located in the relations between
individuals rather than in the experiences of the individuals. For example, factors such as
societal inequality, fairness and justice have been argued to be important to such approaches to
wellness (Pickett & Wilkinson, 2015; Prilleltensky, 2012). However, even while there can be
important interpersonal dimensions to well-being, even community psychologists (e.g.
Schueller, 2009) typically take aggregated individually experienced well-being as a key indicator
of the wellness of a community or society, making it a key outcome across various psychological
approaches to well-being – and the type of well-being that the present article has focused on.
Furthermore, sometimes it is questioned whether a unified conceptualization of well-being is
desirable at all, as one could argue that different cultures have their own idiographic perspectives
on well-being that might diverge from how people in the Western countries tend to think about
well-being, and that we should celebrate this diversity rather than subsume it under one concept
of well-being (see e.g. Delle Fave & Bassi, 2009; Joshanloo, 2014). Nevertheless, in an
increasingly globalized world where members of various cultures not only increasingly
encounter each other but must increasingly make decisions about what goals to pursue together
in organizations and in societies, some common denominators may be helpful. Thus a quest to
identify universal categories of well-being based on basic human nature seems an important
goal, and basic psychological needs could provide one important avenue to reach that goal,
although getting there is a long journey that will need to be firmly informed by cross-cultural
research and cross-disciplinary viewpoints in order to avoid a narrowly Westernized
understanding of well-being.
It is also worth noting that here we have concentrated on factors internal to the
individual: one’s activities, need satisfaction, and subjective well-being. This focus does not
mean that contextual factors are not equally important for need satisfaction and well-being. For
example, research on relatedness frustration has shown that both subjective sense of loneliness
and objective amount of social isolation, although sometimes weakly correlated, increased the
risk for mortality approximately equally (Holt-Lunstad, Smith, Baker, Harris, & Stephenson,
2015). Instead of downplaying the importance of social and environmental factors, we believe,
in accordance with SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2017), that psychological need satisfaction is crucially
important also in explaining why certain contextual and environmental factors ranging from
supportive learning environments (e.g. Jang et al., 2009) to organizational support in the
workplace (e.g. Gillet et al., 2012) are important for well-being. However, in addition to this
direct effect that environmental conditions can have on need satisfaction and SWB, they play an
important role in supporting the individual’s ability to engage in eudaimonic motives/activities.
For example, restrictive parenting at age 5 is associated with participants placing less emphasis
on intrinsic values such as self-direction as adults (Kasser, Koestner, & Lekes, 2002).
Accordingly, we argue that an important task for parents, teachers, supervisors and other
authority figures is to support people’s capability to pursue eudaimonic goals and activities in
their lives. Especially through being autonomy supportive and caring can others support a
growing individual’s capability to engage in eudaimonic activities and pursue eudaimonic goals.
In discussing the nature and dimensions of well-being Clark (2016, p. 546) concluded
that “it may well be a long hard ride to reach any form of consensus, but it is difficult to
overestimate the importance of such an undertaking.” In this spirit, the present article has aimed
to offer a few steps towards such a future consensus by arguing that within the broader category
of well-being there are two sub-categories of “doing well” and “feeling well,” with EWB
involving elements of both. More precisely, we argue that EWB involves two more clearly
defined sub-categories: eudaimonic motives/activities and psychological need-satisfactions.
Psychological needs pinpoint key elements of experienced well-being that are rooted in human
nature and that enhance SWB universally, across cultures. Thus measuring them along with
SWB in future studies of well-being could offer a broader view of the nature of well-being of a
society and insights about how to improve well-being in the future.

References
Aristotle. (2012). Nicomachean ethics (R. C. Bartlett & S. D. Collins, trans.). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R. M., Bosch, J. A., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani,
C. (2011). Self-determination theory and diminished functioning: The role of interpersonal
control and psychological need thwarting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(11),
1459–1473.
Bauer, J. J., & McAdams, D. P. (2010). Eudaimonic growth: Narrative growth goals
predict increases in ego development and subjective well-being 3 years later. Developmental
Psychology, 46(4), 761–772.
Bauer, J. J., McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2008). Narrative identity and eudaimonic
well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 81–104.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
Berrios, R., Totterdell, P., & Kellett, S. (2018). When Feeling Mixed Can Be
Meaningful: The Relation Between Mixed Emotions and Eudaimonic Well-Being. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 19(3), 841–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9849-y
Blasi, E., Nucera, M., Cicatiello, C., & Franco, S. (2013). Socio-demographic
Components of Eudaimonic Well-Being: A Survey in an Italian Province. Social Indicators
Research, 113(1), 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0104-y
Boone, L., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., der Kaap-Deeder, V., & Verstuyf, J. (2014).
Self-critical perfectionism and binge eating symptoms: A longitudinal test of the intervening role
of psychological need frustration. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61(3), 363–373.

Busseri, M. A. (2015). Toward a Resolution of the Tripartite Structure of Subjective
Well-Being. Journal of Personality, 83(4), 413–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12116
Busseri, M. A. (2018). Examining the structure of subjective well-being through meta-
analysis of the associations among positive affect, negative affect, and life satisfaction.
Personality and Individual Differences, 122, 68–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.003
Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E. L., Deeder, J., … Verstuyf,
J. (2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four
cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 39(2), 216–236.
Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from
individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization of
cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 97–
110.
Clark, A. E. (2016). SWB as a measure of individual well-being. In M. D. Adler & M.
Fleurbaey (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Well-Being and Public Policy (pp. 518–552). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Clark, A. E., Frijters, P., & Shields, M. A. (2008). Relative income, happiness, and
utility: an explanation for the Easterlin paradox and other puzzles. Journal of Economic
Literature, 46(1), 95–144.
Clark, A. E., & Senik, C. (2011). Is happiness different from flourishing? Cross-country
evidence from the ESS. Revue D’économie Politique, 121(1), 17–34.
Conzo, P., Aassve, A., Fuochi, G., & Mencarini, L. (2017). The cultural foundations of
happiness. Journal of Economic Psychology, 62, 268–283.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2017.08.001
Cooke, P. J., Melchert, T. P., & Connor, K. (2016). Measuring well-being: a review of
instruments. The Counseling Psychologist, 44(5), 730–757.
Curran, T., Hill, A. P., Ntoumanis, N., Hall, H. K., & Jowett, G. E. (2016). A three-wave
longitudinal test of self-determination theory’s mediation model of engagement and disaffection
in youth sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 38(1), 15–29.
Deaton, A. (2008). Income, Health and Wellbeing Around the World: Evidence from the
Gallup World Poll. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(2), 53–72.
https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.22.2.53
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The“ what” and“ why” of goal pursuits: Human needs
and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
Delle Fave, A. (2016). Subjective indicators of well-being: conceptual background and
applications in social sciences. In L. Bruni & P. L. Porta (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods
and Applications in Happiness and Quality of Life (pp. 71–89). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Delle Fave, A., & Bassi, M. (2009). The contribution of diversity to happiness research.
The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(3), 205–207.
Di Domenico, S. I., & Fournier, M. A. (2014). Socioeconomic status, income inequality,
and health complaints: A basic psychological needs perspective. Social Indicators Research,
119(3), 1679–1697.
Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2015). Hedonic and eudaimonic well-being: the role of
resilience beyond fluid intelligence and personality traits. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1367).
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01367
Di Tella, R., & MacCulloch, R. (2006). Some uses of happiness data in economics.
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 25–46.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575.
Diener, E. (1994). Assessing subjective well-being: Progress and opportunities. Social
Indicators Research, 31(2), 103–157.
Diener, E. (2012). New findings and future directions for subjective well-being research.
American Psychologist, 67(8), 590–597. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029541
Diener, E., Ng, W., Harter, J. K., & Arora, R. (2010). Wealth and happiness across the
world: material prosperity predicts life evaluation, whereas psychosocial prosperity predicts
positive feeling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1), 52–61.
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2015). National accounts of subjective well-being.
American Psychologist, 70(3), 234–242.
Diener, E., Suh, E., Lucas, R., & Smith, H. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades
of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302.
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R.
(2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative
feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156.
Dolan, P., Kudrna, L., & Stone, A. (2016). The measure matters: an investigation of
evaluative and experience-based measures of wellbeing in time use data. Social Indicators
Research, 1–17.
Dolan, P., Layard, R., & Metcalfe, R. (2011). Measuring subjective well-being for public
policy. Office for National Statistics (ONS).
Fischer, R., & Boer, D. (2011). What is more important for national well-being: money
or autonomy? A meta-analysis of well-being, burnout, and anxiety across 63 societies. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 164–184.
Fischer, R., & Schwartz, S. (2011). Whence differences in value priorities? Individual,
cultural, or artifactual sources. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(7), 1127–1144.
Fowers, B. J., Mollica, C. O., & Procacci, E. N. (2010). Constitutive and instrumental
goal orientations and their relations with eudaimonic and hedonic well-being. The Journal of
Positive Psychology, 5(2), 139–153.
Frazier, L. D., Barreto, M. L., & Newman, F. L. (2012). Self-regulation and eudaimonic
well-being across adulthood. Experimental Aging Research, 38(4), 394–410.
Gillet, N., Fouquereau, E., Forest, J., Brunault, P., & Colombat, P. (2012). The impact of
organizational factors on psychological needs and their relations with well-being. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 27(4), 437–450.
González, M. G., Swanson, D. P., Lynch, M., & Williams, G. C. (2016). Testing
satisfaction of basic psychological needs as a mediator of the relationship between
socioeconomic status and physical and mental health. Journal of Health Psychology, 21(6), 972–
982. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105314543962
Graham, C., & Nikolova, M. (2015). Bentham or Aristotle in the development process?
An empirical investigation of capabilities and subjective well-being. World Development, 68,
163–179.
Hansen, K. B. (2015). Exploring compatibility between “subjective well-being” and
“sustainable living” in Scandinavia. Social Indicators Research, 122(1), 175–187.
Haybron, D. M. (2008). The pursuit of unhappiness: the elusive psychology of well-
being. New York: Oxford University Press.

Heintzelman, S. J. (2018). Eudaimonia in the contemporary science of subjective well-
being: Psychological well-being, self-determination, and meaning in life. In E. Diener, S. Oishi,
& L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. Retrieved from www. nobascholar.com
Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (Eds.). (2018). World Happiness Report 2018.
New York: Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
Henriques, G., Kleinman, K., & Asselin, C. (2014). The Nested Model of well-being: A
unified approach. Review of General Psychology, 18(1), 7–18.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015).
Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 10(2), 227–237.
Huppert, F. A., & So, T. T. (2013). Flourishing across Europe: Application of a new
conceptual framework for defining well-being. Social Indicators Research, 110(3), 837–861.
Huta, V. (2016). Eudaimonic and Hedonic Orientations: Theoretical Considerations and
Research Findings. In J. Vittersø (Ed.), Handbook of Eudaimonic Wellbeing (pp. 215–230). New
York: Springer.
Huta, V., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Pursuing pleasure or virtue: The differential and
overlapping well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 11(6), 735–762.
Huta, V., & Waterman, A. S. (2014). Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia:
Developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational
definitions. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(6), 1425–1456.
Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2016). Why students become more engaged or more
disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model. Learning and
Instruction, 43, 27–38.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., & Kim, A. (2009). Can self-determination theory
explain what underlies the productive, satisfying learning experiences of collectivistically
oriented Korean students? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 644–661.
Jayawickreme, E., Forgeard, M. J., & Seligman, M. E. (2012). The engine of well-being.
Review of General Psychology, 16(4), 327–342.
Joshanloo, M. (2014). Eastern Conceptualizations of Happiness: Fundamental
Differences with Western Views. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(2), 475–493.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9431-1
Joshanloo, M. (2016). Revisiting the empirical distinction between hedonic and
eudaimonic aspects of well-being using exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 17(5), 2023–2036.
Joshanloo, M. (2018a). Investigating the relationships between subjective well-being and
psychological well-being over two decades. Emotion, Advance publication online.
https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000414
Joshanloo, M. (2018b). Longitudinal associations between subjective and psychological
well-being in Japan: A four-year cross-lagged panel study. Personality and Individual
Differences, 134, 289–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.06.033
Joshanloo, M. (2018c). Optimal human functioning around the world: A new index of
eudaimonic well-being in 166 nations. British Journal of Psychology, 109(4), 637–655.
Kahneman, D. (1999). Objective happiness. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwartz
(Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 3–25). New York: Russell Sage.
Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not
emotional well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(38), 16489–16493.
Kapteyn, A., Lee, J., Tassot, C., Vonkova, H., & Zamarro, G. (2015). Dimensions of
Subjective Well-Being. Social Indicators Research, 123(3), 625–660.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0753-0
Kashdan, T. B., Biswas-Diener, R., & King, L. A. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: The
costs of distinguishing between hedonics and eudaimonia. The Journal of Positive Psychology,
3(4), 219–233.
Kashdan, T. B., & Steger, M. F. (2011). Challenges, pitfalls, and aspirations for positive
psychology. In K. M. Sheldon, T. B. Kashdan, & M. F. Steger (Eds.), Designing positive
psychology: Taking stock and moving forward (pp. 9–24). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kashdan, T. B., Uswatte, G., & Julian, T. (2006). Gratitude and hedonic and eudaimonic
well-being in Vietnam war veterans. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(2), 177–199.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.01.005
Kasser, T., Koestner, R., & Lekes, N. (2002). Early family experiences and adult values:
A 26-year, prospective longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6),
826–835.
Kern, M. L., Waters, L. E., Adler, A., & White, M. A. (2015). A multidimensional
approach to measuring well-being in students: Application of the PERMA framework. The
Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(3), 262–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.936962
Keyes, C. L. M. (2007). Promoting and protecting mental health as flourishing: A
complementary strategy for improving national mental health. American Psychologist, 62(2),
95–108.
Kiaei, Y. A., & Reio Jr, T. G. (2014). Goal pursuit and eudaimonic well-being among
university students: Metacognition as the mediator. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 19(4), 91–
104.
Klar, M., & Kasser, T. (2009). Some benefits of being an activist: Measuring activism
and its role in psychological well-being. Political Psychology, 30(5), 755–777.
Konkolÿ Thege, B., Littvay, L., Tarnoki, D. L., & Tarnoki, A. D. (2017). Genetic and
Environmental Effects on Eudaimonic and Hedonic Well-Being: Evidence from a Post-
Communist Culture. Current Psychology, 36(1), 84–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-
9387-x
Kristjánsson, K. (2010). Positive psychology, happiness, and virtue: The troublesome
conceptual issues. Review of General Psychology, 14(4), 296–310.
Lee, H. W., Bradburn, J., Johnson, R. E., Lin, S.-H. J., & Chang, C.-H. D. (2018). The
benefits of receiving gratitude for helpers: A daily investigation of proactive and reactive
helping at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, Advance Online Publication.
Legatum Institute. (2014). Wellbeing and policy. Legatum Institute.
Lewis, P., Kimiecik, J., Horn, T., Zullig, K. J., & Ward, R. M. (2014). Can Becoming
My Self Influence My Health?: Exploring the Effects of a Eudaimonic-Enhancement Process on
Psychological Indicators of Well-Being and Physical Activity. Applied Research in Quality of
Life, 9(3), 643–665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-013-9263-5
Mackenzie, C. S., Karaoylas, E. C., & Starzyk, K. B. (2017). Lifespan Differences in a
Self Determination Theory Model of Eudaimonia: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Younger,
Middle-Aged, and Older Adults. Journal of Happiness Studies, Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9932-4
Maltby, J., Day, L., & Barber, L. (2005). Forgiveness and happiness. The differing
contexts of forgiveness using the distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic happiness.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 6(1), 1–13.
Martela, F., & Ryan, R. M. (2016a). Prosocial behavior increases well-being and vitality
even without contact with the beneficiary: Causal and behavioral evidence. Motivation and
Emotion, 40(3), 351–357.
Martela, F., & Ryan, R. M. (2016b). The Benefits of Benevolence: Basic Psychological
Needs, Beneficence, and the Enhancement of Well-Being. Journal of Personality, 84(6), 750–
764. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12215
Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal
mediation. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 23–44.
Maxwell, S. E., Cole, D. A., & Mitchell, M. A. (2011). Bias in cross-sectional analyses
of longitudinal mediation: Partial and complete mediation under an autoregressive model.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(5), 816–841.
Mayer, J. D., Chabot, H. F., & Carlsmith, K. M. (1997). Conation, affect, and cognition
in personality. Advances in Psychology, 124, 31–63.
National Research Council. (2013). Subjective well-being: Measuring happiness,
suffering, and other dimensions of experience. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press.
Nelson, S. K., Fuller, J. A., Choi, I., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2014). Beyond self-protection:
Self-affirmation benefits hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 40(8), 998–1011.
New Economics Foundation. (2008). National Accounts of Well-being: bringing real
wealth onto the balance sheet. Retrieved from www.nationalaccountsofwellbeing.org
Ng, W., & Diener, E. (2014). What matters to the rich and the poor? Subjective well-
being, financial satisfaction, and postmaterialist needs across the world. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 107(2), 326–338.
Niemiec, C. P., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). The path taken: Consequences of
attaining intrinsic and extrinsic aspirations in post-college life. Journal of Research in
Personality, 43(3), 291–306.
Nikolaev, B. (2018). Does Higher Education Increase Hedonic and Eudaimonic
Happiness? Journal of Happiness Studies, 19(2), 483–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-
9833-y
OECD. (2013). OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being. Paris: OECD
Publishing.
Oishi, S., Kushlev, K., & Schimmack, U. (2018). Progressive taxation, income
inequality, and happiness. American Psychologist, 73(2), 157–168.
Passmore, H.-A., & Howell, A. J. (2014). Nature involvement increases hedonic and
eudaimonic well-being: a two-week experimental study. Ecopsychology, 6(3), 148–154.
Pickett, K. E., & Wilkinson, R. G. (2015). Income inequality and health: a causal review.
Social Science & Medicine, 128, 316–326.
Prilleltensky, I. (2012). Wellness as fairness. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 49(1–2), 1–21.
Prilleltensky, I., Dietz, S., Prilleltensky, O., Myers, N. D., Rubenstein, C. L., Jin, Y., &
McMahon, A. (2015). Assessing multidimensional well-being: Development and validation of
the I COPPE scale. Journal of Community Psychology, 43(2), 199–226.
Rasskazova, E., Ivanova, T., & Sheldon, K. (2016). Comparing the effects of low-level
and high-level worker need-satisfaction: A synthesis of the self-determination and Maslow need
theories. Motivation and Emotion, 40, 541–555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-016-9557-7
Ryan, R. M., Bernstein, J. H., & Brown, K. W. (2010). Weekends, work, and well-being:
Psychological need satisfactions and day of the week effects on mood, vitality, and physical
symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29(1), 95–122.
Ryan, R. M., Curren, R. R., & Deci, E. L. (2013). What Humans Need: Flourishing in
Aristotelian Philosophy and Self-Determination Theory. In A. S. Waterman (Ed.), The Best
Within Us: Positive Psychology Perspectives on Eudaimonia (pp. 57–75). Washington D.C.:
APA Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
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(1), 141–
166.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Overview of Self-Determination Theory: An
organismic dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-
determination research (pp. 3–33). Rochester, NY.: University of Rochester Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological
Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York: Guilford Press.
Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Living well: A self-determination theory
perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 139–170.
Ryan, R. M., & Martela, F. (2016). Eudaimonia as a way of living: Connecting Aristotle
with self-determination theory. In J. Vittersø (Ed.), Handbook of Eudaimonic Wellbeing (pp.
109–122). New York: Springer.

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), 1069–1081.
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (1998). The contours of positive human health. Psychological
Inquiry, 9(1), 1–28.
Schueller, S. M. (2009). Promoting wellness: Integrating community and positive
psychology. Journal of Community Psychology, 37(7), 922–937.
Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., Cheung, W.-Y., Routledge, C., Hepper, E. G., Arndt, J., …
Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M. (2016). Nostalgia fosters self-continuity: Uncovering the mechanism
(social connectedness) and consequence (eudaimonic well-being). Emotion, 16(4), 524–539.
https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000136
Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and
Well-being. New York: Free Press.
Sheldon, K. M. (2011). Integrating behavioral-motive and experiential-requirement
perspectives on psychological needs: A two process model. Psychological Review, 118(4), 552–
569.
Sheldon, K. M. (2016). Putting eudaimonia in its place: On the predictor, not the
outcome, side of the equation. In J. Vittersø (Ed.), Handbook of Eudaimonic Wellbeing (pp.
531–541). New York: Springer.
Sheldon, K. M. (2018). Understanding the good life: Eudaimonic living involves well-
doing, not well-being. In J. P. Forgas & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), The Social Psychology of
Living Well (pp. 116–136). New York: Routledge.
Sheldon, K. M., Abad, N., Ferguson, Y., Gunz, A., Houser-Marko, L., Nichols, C. P., &
Lyubomirsky, S. (2010). Persistent pursuit of need-satisfying goals leads to increased happiness:

A 6-month experimental longitudinal study. Motivation and Emotion, 34(1), 39–48.
Sheldon, K. M., Corcoran, M., & Prentice, M. (2018). Pursuing Eudaimonic Functioning
Versus Pursuing Hedonic Well-Being: The First Goal Succeeds in Its Aim, Whereas the Second
Does Not. Journal of Happiness Studies, Advance Online Publication, 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-9980-4
Sheldon, K. M., Cummins, R., & Kamble, S. (2010). Life balance and well-being:
Testing a novel conceptual and measurement approach. Journal of Personality, 78(4), 1093–
1134.
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal
well-being: the self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3),
482–497.
Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about
satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80(2), 325–339.
Sheldon, K. M., & Filak, V. (2008). Manipulating autonomy, competence, and
relatedness support in a game-learning context: New evidence that all three needs matter. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 47(2), 267–283.
Sheldon, K. M., Gunz, A., & Schachtman, T. R. (2012). What does it mean to be in touch
with oneself? Testing a social character model of self-congruence. Self and Identity, 11(1), 51–
70.
Sheldon, K. M., & Krieger, L. S. (2007). Understanding the negative effects of legal
education on law students: A longitudinal test of self-determination theory. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(6), 883–897.

Sheldon, K. M., & Niemiec, C. P. (2006). It’s not just the amount that counts: Balanced
need satisfaction also affects well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(2),
331–341.
Sheldon, K. M., & Schüler, J. (2011). Wanting, having, and needing: Integrating motive
disposition theory and self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
101(5), 1106–1123.
Sobol-Kwapinska, M., Jankowski, T., & Przepiorka, A. (2016). What do we gain by
adding time perspective to mindfulness? Carpe Diem and mindfulness in a temporal framework.
Personality and Individual Differences, 93, 112–117.
Steptoe, A., Deaton, A., & Stone, A. A. (2015). Subjective wellbeing, health, and ageing.
The Lancet, 385(9968), 14–20.
Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2009). Report of the Commission on the
Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress.
Su, R., Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2014). The Development and Validation of the
Comprehensive Inventory of Thriving (CIT) and the Brief Inventory of Thriving (BIT). Applied
Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 6(3), 251–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12027
Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 354–365.
Tennant, R., Hiller, L., Fishwick, R., Platt, S., Joseph, S., Weich, S., … Stewart-Brown,
S. (2007). The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): development and
UK validation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5(63), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-
7525-5-63
Thrash, T. M., Elliot, A. J., Maruskin, L. A., & Cassidy, S. E. (2010). Inspiration and the
promotion of well-being: Tests of causality and mediation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 98(3), 488–506.
Toma, A., Hamer, M., & Shankar, A. (2015). Associations between neighborhood
perceptions and mental well-being among older adults. Health & Place, 34, 46–53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2015.03.014
Turban, D. B., & Yan, W. (2016). Relationship of eudaimonia and hedonia with work
outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(6), 1006–1020.
Vansteenkiste, M., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability:
Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. Journal of
Psychotherapy Integration, 23(3), 263–280.
Veenhoven, R. (2002). Why social policy needs subjective indicators. Social Indicators
Research, 58(1–3), 33–46.
Vittersø, J., & Dahl, T. I. (2013). What’s in a face? Perhaps some elements of both
eudaimonic and hedonic well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(4), 337–345.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.803597
Vittersø, J., & Søholt, Y. (2011). Life satisfaction goes with pleasure and personal
growth goes with interest: Further arguments for separating hedonic and eudaimonic well-being.
The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6(4), 326–335.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2011.584548
Vowinckel, J. C., Westerhof, G. J., Bohlmeijer, E. T., & Webster, J. D. (2017).
Flourishing in the now: Initial validation of a present-eudaimonic time perspective scale. Time &
Society, 26(2), 203–226.
Wang, R., Liu, H., Jiang, J., & Song, Y. (2017). Will materialism lead to happiness? A
longitudinal analysis of the mediating role of psychological needs satisfaction. Personality and
Individual Differences, 105, 312–317.
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.
Waterman, A. S., Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., Ravert, R. D., Williams, M. K.,
Bede Agocha, V., … Brent Donnellan, M. (2010). The Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Well-
Being: Psychometric properties, demographic comparisons, and evidence of validity. The
Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(1), 41–61.
Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for
prosocial behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 222–244.
White, M. P., Pahl, S., Wheeler, B. W., Depledge, M. H., & Fleming, L. E. (2017).
Natural environments and subjective wellbeing: Different types of exposure are associated with
different aspects of wellbeing. Health & Place, 45, 77–84.
Yu, S., Levesque-Bristol, C., & Maeda, Y. (2018). General Need for Autonomy and
Subjective Well-Being: A Meta-Analysis of Studies in the US and East Asia. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 19(6), 1863–1882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9898-2
Yukhymenko-Lescroart, M. A., & Sharma, G. (2018). The Relationship Between Faculty
Members’ Passion for Work and Well-Being. Journal of Happiness Studies, Advance Online
Publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-9977-z
View publication stats

MartelaSheldon2019 Postprint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MartelaSheldon2019 Postprint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MartelaSheldon2019 Postprint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Clarifying the Concept of Well-Being: Psychological Need Satisfaction as the

Article in Review of General Psychology · October 2019

Frank Martela Kennon Sheldon

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Clarifying the concept of well-being: Psychological need-satisfaction as the common core

Clarifying the concept of well-being:

Aalto University, Finland

P.O.Box 15500, FI-00076 Aalto, Finland

University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA

International Laboratory of Positive Psychology of Personality and Motivation, National

Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia

significantly increased in recent decades. While subjective well-being (SWB) – comprised of

referred to as Eudaimonic well-being (EWB), should be measured alongside SWB. EWB,

the Eudaimonic Activity Model, we propose a tripartite conception of well-being, distinguishing

being and health.

Keywords: Eudaimonic well-being, positive functioning, psychological needs, self-

determination theory, subjective well-being

Clarifying the concept of well-being:

Experienced well-being is used as a key outcome in several fields of psychology ranging

from clinical psychology, health psychology, developmental psychology, and geriatric

psychology to educational psychology, organizational psychology, community psychology, and

Beyond psychology, also sociologists, economists, and policy researchers have

traditional economic measures of societal success should be complemented with measures of

experienced well-being as part of nationally representative surveys, such as the well-being

Given that the importance of experienced well-being as a key outcome in behavioral

some set or combination of psychological elements (such as autonomy, purpose, meaning, or

two representing the eudaimonic dimensions of well-being; 3) The psychological need-

most parsimonious set of fundamentally satisfying psychosocial experiences, by making a strong

contextual factors upon SWB (Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2017).

such a theory in the future.

The expanding number of elements of eudaimonic well-being

While well-being is most typically conceptualized as subjective well-being (SWB), a

The elements of EWB as posited by several influential theories

Psychological well-being (Ryff, 1989) Flourishing Scale (Diener et al., 2010)

The 63 separate elements used in different operationalizations of EWB

Accomplishment Measure of control

psychological well-being (PWB) that must be present in a well-lived life: self-acceptance,

challenge to prior tendencies to conceptualize well-being primarily as SWB (Diener, 1984,

elements from a number of previous theories including purpose, supportive relationships,

defining and operationalizing EWB as having six elements: self-discovery, perceived

significant effort in pursuit of excellence, intense involvement in activities, and enjoyment of

stability, vitality, optimism, resilience, self-esteem, engagement, competence, meaning, and

positive emotions, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accomplishments (Kern, Waters,

competence and autonomy (Tennant et al., 2007).

meaning/purpose, competence, autonomy, relatedness, and engagement. However to date,

of this conceptualization of well-being” (Cooke et al., 2016, p. 746) – an untenable situation if

on the chosen measures.

In sum, to avoid a ‘bracket creep’ where an ever-expanding number of constructs become

encompassed within an increasingly ambiguous construct of eudaimonic well-being (Kashdan &

conceptions of well-being into three more clearly-defined sub-categories.

Three categories of well-being: Eudaimonic motives/activities, psychological need-

satisfaction, and subjective well-being

In general, there are at least three different schools within conceptualizations of

(Haybron, 2008, p. 171). Second, there is a school emphasizing the hedonic-vs-eudaimonic

using everything from “volunteering” to “respect” to “material satisfaction” to “clear thinking”

psychological need-satisfaction, and subjective well-being.

eudaimonic motives/activities and psychological need-satisfaction contribute (Sheldon et al.,