THE EUDAIMONIC ACTIVITY MODEL AS AN EXPLANATORY CONCEPT OF PERSONAL WELL-BEING
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/psych.studies/2023.1.2Keywords:
positive psychology, eudaimonia, hedonia, basic psychological needs, subjective well-being, eudaimonic well-being.Abstract
The paper shows that the existing scientific approaches to the study of eudaimonic well-being offer diverse and inconsistent operationalisations of the construct, and the number of components and their components are virtually unlimited. This state of affairs has led to an uncontrolled expansion of the category of eudaimonic well-being, and as a result, practical psychologists are faced with an increasing variety of characteristics that they must take into account in their intervention measures. The article notes that the original, most general goal of the authors of the eudaimonic activity model was precisely to help resolve definitional uncertainties in well-being research. It was also proposed as a reaction to the findings that people's direct pursuit of subjective well-being does not bring the desired result and may even be counterproductive. By identifying happiness with subjective well-being, eudaimonia is seen not as a type of wellbeing but as its predictor, not as a mental or emotional state but as an activity that generates the experience of subjective well-being, as a "right life" that is in agreement with one's own "I" and, accordingly, such a life is rewarded by the experience of subjective well-being. This key point was implemented in the eudaimonic activity model, which assumes that active engagement in certain activities that contribute to the satisfaction of basic needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness leads to an increase in subjective well-being. Subjective well-being itself is traditionally operationalised through the balance of positive and negative affect and the level of life satisfaction, and is considered the only adequate measure of an individual's well-being.
References
Арістотель. Нікомахова етика / пер. з давньогр. В. Ставнюк. Київ : Аквілон-Плюс, 2002. 480 с.
Annas J. The morality of happiness. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1993. 512 p.
Busseri M. A. 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. 2018. Vol. 122. P. 68–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.003
Clark A. SWB as a Measure of Individual Well-Being. The Oxford handbook of well-being and public policy / ed. by M. D. Adler, M. Fleurbaey. New York, 2016. P. 518–552. https://doi. org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199325818.013.17
Conzo P., Aassve A., Fuochi G., Mencarini L. The cultural foundations of happiness. Journal of Economic Psychology. 2017. Vol. 62. P. 268–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2017.08.001
Huta V., Waterman A. S. Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia: Developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2014. Vol. 15, no. 6. P. 1425–1456. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10902-013-9485-0
Kapteyn A., Lee J., Tassot C., Vonkova H., Zamarro G. Dimensions of Subjective Well- Being. Social Indicators Research. 2015. Vol. 123, no. 3. P. 625–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11205-014-0753-0
Martela F. Self-Determination Theory as the Science of Eudaimonia and Good Living. The Oxford Handbook of Self-Determination Theory. 2023. P. 309–324. https://doi.org/10.1093/ oxfordhb/9780197600047.013.22
Martela F., Ryan R. M. Clarifying Eudaimonia and Psychological Functioning to Complement Evaluative and Experiential Well-Being: Why Basic Psychological Needs Should Be Measured in National Accounts of Well-Being. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2023. P. 174569162211410. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221141099
Martela F., Sheldon K. M. Clarifying the Concept of Well-Being: Psychological Need Satisfaction as the Common Core Connecting Eudaimonic and Subjective Well-Being. Review of General Psychology. 2019. Vol. 23, no. 4. P. 458–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268019880886
Ng W., Diener E. 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. 2014. Vol. 107, no. 2. P. 326–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036856
Ng J. Y. Y., Ntoumanis N., Thogersen-Ntoumani C., Deci E. L., Ryan R. M., Duda J. L., et al. Self-Determination Theory Applied to Health Contexts. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2012. Vol. 7, no. 4. P. 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612447309
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD guidelines on measuring subjective well-being. Paris : OECD, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264191655-en
Pittman T. S., Zeigler K. R. Basic human needs. Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles / ed. by A. W. Kruglanski, E. T. Higgins. 2007. P. 473–489.
Ryan R. M. Psychological Needs and the Facilitation of Integrative Processes. Journal of Personality. 1995. Vol. 63, no. 3. P. 397–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995. tb00501.x
Ryan R. M., Deci E. L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist. 2000. Vol. 55, no. 1. P. 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68
Ryan R. M., Deci E. L. Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York : Guilford Publishing, 2017. 756 p.
Ryan R. M., Martela F. Eudaimonia as a way of living: Connecting Aristotle with selfdetermination theory. Handbook of eudaimonic wellbeing. New York, 2016. P. 109–122.
Sheldon K. Putting eudaimonia in its place: On the predictor, not the outcome, side of the equation. Handbook of Eudaimonic Well-Being. Cham, 2016. P. 531–541. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-42445-3_36.
Sheldon K. M. Understanding the good life: Eudaimonic living involves well-doing, not well-being. The social psychology of living well / ed. by J. P. Forgas, R. F. Baumeister. New York, 2018. P. 116–136.
Sheldon K. M., Corcoran M., Prentice M. Pursuing Eudaimonic Functioning Versus Pursuing Hedonic Well-Being: The First Goal Succeeds in Its Aim, Whereas the Second Does Not. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2018. Vol. 20, no. 3. P. 919–933. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10902-018-9980-4
Slemp G. R., Kern M. L., Patrick K. J., Ryan R. M. Leader autonomy support in the workplace: A meta-analytic review. Motivation and Emotion. 2018. Vol. 42, no. 5. P. 706–724. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11031-018-9698-y
Su R., Tay L., Diener E. The Development and Validation of the Comprehensive Inventory of Thriving (CIT) and the Brief Inventory of Thriving (BIT). Applied Psychology: Health and Well- Being. 2014. Vol. 6, no. 3. P. 251–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12027
Tay L., Diener E. Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2011. Vol. 101, no. 2. P. 354–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023779
Van den Broeck A., Ferris D. L., Chang C. H., Rosen C. C. A Review of Self-Determination Theory’s Basic Psychological Needs at Work. Journal of Management. 2016. Vol. 42, no. 5. P. 1195–1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316632058
Vansteenkiste M., Ryan R. M. On psychological growth and vulnerability: Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration. 2013. Vol. 23, no. 3. P. 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032359
Vasquez A. C., Patall E. A., Fong C. J., Corrigan A. S., Pine L. Parent Autonomy Support, Academic Achievement, and Psychosocial Functioning: a Meta-analysis of Research. Educational Psychology Review. 2015. Vol. 28, no. 3. P. 605–644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9329-z
Yu S., Levesque-Bristol C., Maeda Y. General Need for Autonomy and Subjective Well- Being: A Meta-Analysis of Studies in the US and East Asia. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2017. Vol. 19, no. 6. P. 1863–1882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9898-2
