Abstract
Centuries of philosophical debate and decades of empirical research have sought to characterize what it means to be psychologically well. A unifying conceptual framework to organize these diverse perspectives is needed to facilitate clear communication and cumulative science within the field of well-being science. Although a handful of overarching theoretical and measurement models of well-being have been proposed, they typically make strong claims about which constructs should be included or excluded as well as the manner and degree to which well-being constructs are related to one another. Thus, these models are often not widely adopted as organizational or communicative tools, due to their exclusion of particular theoretical perspectives or disagreement among researchers about the empirical structure of well-being. While the field continues to grapple with these issues, it would benefit from a unifying conceptual framework that is broad in scope and that can flexibly accommodate diverse theoretical perspectives and new empirical advances. In this paper, I discuss the benefits of a unifying conceptual framework for well-being, as well as the challenges in its construction. Specifically, I review strengths and limitations of Park et al.’s proposed framework of “emotional well-being,” and suggest an alternative framework of “psychosocial well-being” that encompasses the diverse array of constructs that have been proposed as positive psychological aspects of well-being.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., Kashdan, T. B., Short, J. L., & Jarden, A. (2016). Different types of well-being? A cross-cultural examination of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Psychological Assessment, 28(5), 471–482.
Disabato, D., Goodman, F. R., & Kashdan, T. B. (2019, December 31). A hierarchical framework for the measurement of well-being. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5rhqj
Feller, S. C., Castillo, E. G., Greenberg, J. M., Abascal, P., Van Horn, R., Wells, K. B., & University of California, Los Angeles Community Translational Science Team. (2018). Emotional well-being and public health: Proposal for a model national initiative.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional well-being. Psychological Science, 13(2), 172–175.
Goodman, F. R., Disabato, D. J., Kashdan, T. B., & Kauffman, S. B. (2018). Measuring well-being: A comparison of subjective well-being and PERMA. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(4), 321–332.
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.
Joshanloo, M. (2016). Revisiting the empirical distinction between hedonic and eudiamonic aspects of well-being using exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(5), 2023–2036.
Joshanloo, M., Capone, V., Petrillo, G., & Caso, D. (2017). Discriminant validity of hedonic, social, and psychological well-being in two Italian samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 109, 23–27.
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.
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.
Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 121–140.
Lu, L., & Gilmour, R. (2004). Culture and conceptions of happiness: Individual oriented and social oriented SWB. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5(3), 269–291.
National Institutes of Health. (2018a). Emotional well-being: Emerging insights and questions for future research. https://www.nccih.nih.gov/research/emotional-well-being-emerging-insights-and-questions-for-future-research
National Institutes of Health. Emotional well-being: High priority research networks (U24, clinical trial optional) (2018b). https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/rfa-at-20-003.html
Park, C.L., Kubzansky, L., Chafouleas, S., Davidson, R., Keltner, D., Yeates, P.P., Conwell, Y., Martin, M., Hamner, J.H., & Wang, K. (in press). Emotional well-being: What it is and why it matters. Affective Science.
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.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well- being. Simon & Schuster.
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.
Uchida, Y., & Kitayama, S. (2009). Happiness and unhappiness in east and west: themes and variations. Emotion, 9(4), 441.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
Preparation of this commentary was supported by a National Institute on Aging grant (R00AG071838) awarded to ECW. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Conflict of Interest
The author declares no competing interests.
Additional information
Handling Editor: Wendy Berry Mendes
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Willroth, E.C. The Benefits and Challenges of a Unifying Conceptual Framework for Well-being Constructs. Affec Sci 4, 41–44 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42761-022-00152-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42761-022-00152-3