Journal of Happiness Studies

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 2023–2036 | Cite as

Revisiting the Empirical Distinction Between Hedonic and Eudaimonic Aspects of Well-Being Using Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling

Research Paper

Abstract

The distinction between hedonic (i.e., subjective well-being) and eudaimonic (i.e., psycho-social functioning) components of well-being is questioned by some researchers on the grounds that these two aspects of well-being are highly correlated. However, I argue that previous research has relied on confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), which is likely to overestimate interfactor correlations, because cross-loadings are constrained to be zero in CFA. In contrast, the new method of exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) does not constrain cross-ladings to zero, which results in more accurate factor intercorrelations. The present study used ESEM to reinvestigate the relationship between hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being in a sample of 3986 American adults. The results showed that the ESEM model fitted the data better than the CFA model. As expected, interfactor correlations obtained with ESEM were substantially smaller than those obtained with CFA, indicating greater factor distinctiveness. These results suggest that hedonic and eudaimonic factors are correlated yet largely independent from each other. The results also suggest that ESEM is a more appropriate method than CFA in the study of multi-dimensional constructs, such as mental well-being.

Keywords

Hedonic well-being Eudaimonic well-being Social well-being Keyes’ model Factor analysis ESEM MIDUS 

References

  1. Anglim, J., & Grant, S. (in press). Predicting psychological and subjective well-being from personality: Incremental prediction from 30 facets over the Big 5. Journal of Happiness Studies.Google Scholar
  2. Asparouhov, T., & Muthen, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 397–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bobowik, M., Basabe, N., & Páez, D. (2015). The bright side of migration: Hedonic, psychological, and social well-being in immigrants in Spain. Social Science Research, 51, 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Compton, W. C. (1998). Measures of mental health and a five factor theory of personality. Psychological Reports, 83(1), 371–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Compton, W. C. (2001). Toward a tripartite factor structure of mental health: Subjective well-being, personal growth, and religiosity. The Journal of psychology, 135(5), 486–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: An introduction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Delle Fave, A., & Bassi, M. (2009). The contribution of diversity to happiness research. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(3), 205–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diener, E., Ng, W., Harter, J., & 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, 52–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gallagher, M. W., Lopez, S. J., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). The hierarchical structure of well-being. Journal of Personality, 77(4), 1025–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Joshanloo, M. (2014). Eastern conceptualizations of happiness: Fundamental differences with western views. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(2), 475–493. (Chicago).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Joshanloo, M., Rostami, R., & Nosratabadi, M. (2006). Examining the factor structure of the Keyes’s comprehensive scale of well-being. Journal of Iranian Psychologists, 9, 35–51. (in Persian).Google Scholar
  14. Joshanloo, M., Wissing, M. P., Khumalo, I. P., & Lamers, S. (2013). Measurement invariance of the mental health continuum–short form (MHC–SF) across three cultural groups. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(7), 755–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kafka, G. J., & Kozma, A. (2002). The construct validity of Ryff’s scales of psychological well-being (SPWB) and their relationship to measures of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 57(2), 171–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Preface. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of a hedonic psychology (pp. 9–12). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  17. Karaś, D., Cieciuch, J., & Keyes, C. L. (2014). The Polish adaptation of the mental health continuum–short form (MHC–SF). Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 104–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 121–140.Google Scholar
  20. Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Research, 43, 207–222.Google Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keyes, C. L. M. (Ed.). (2013). Mental well-being: International contributions to the study of positive mental health. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Keyes, C. L., & Annas, J. (2009). Feeling good and functioning well: Distinctive concepts in ancient philosophy and contemporary science. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(3), 197–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keyes, C. L., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: the empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 1007–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Keyes, C. L., Wissing, M., Potgieter, J. P., Temane, M., Kruger, A., & van Rooy, S. (2008). Evaluation of the mental health continuum–short form (MHC–SF) in setswana-speaking South Africans. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 15(3), 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. King, L. A. (2011). Are we there yet? What happened on the way to the demise of positive psychology. In K. M. Sheldon, T. B. Kashdan, & M. F. Steger (Eds.), Designing positive psychology: Taking stock and moving forward (pp. 439–446). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lamers, S., Westerhof, G. J., Bohlmeijer, E. T., ten Klooster, P. M., & Keyes, C. L. (2011). Evaluating the psychometric properties of the mental health continuum–short form (MHC–SF). Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67(1), 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. J., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22(3), 471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J. S., Parker, P. D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10(1), 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., Morin, A. J., Parada, R. H., Craven, R. G., & Hamilton, L. R. (2011). Construct validity of the multidimensional structure of bullying and victimization: An application of exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 701–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morin, A. J. S., Marsh, H. W., & Nagengast, B. (2013). Chapter 10. Exploratory structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed.). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
  33. Mroczek, D. K., & Kolarz, C. M. (1998). The effect of age on positive and negative affect: A developmental perspective on happiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1333–1349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Robitschek, C., & Keyes, C. L. M. (2009). Keyes’s model of mental health with personal growth initiative as a parsimonious predictor. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(2), 321–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ryan, R. M., & Huta, V. (2009). Wellness as healthy functioning or wellness as happiness: The importance of eudaimonic thinking (response to the Kashdan et al. and Waterman discussion). The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(3), 202–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ryff, C. et al. (2012). National survey of midlife development in the United States (MIDUS II), 2004–2006. ICPSR04652-v6. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/landing.jsp. doi: 10.3886/ICPSR04652.v6.
  40. Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schimmack, U. (2008). The structure of subjective well-being. In M. Eid & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjective wellbeing (pp. 97–123). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  42. Sheldon, K. M. (2013). Individual daimon, universal needs, and subjective well-being: Happiness as the natural consequence of a life well lived. In A. Waterman (Ed.), The best within us: Positive psychology perspectives on eudaimonic functioning. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  43. Waterman, A. S. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: A eudaimonist’s perspective. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(4), 234–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyKeimyung UniversityDaeguSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations