Eudaimonia: Empirical Basis
Eudaimonia is a concept that has its roots in Aristotelian thought from the days of the ancient Greeks. Aristotle began his discussion of eudaimonia by stating that
“the function of the soul and of its virtue must be one and the same thing, its virtue’s function would be an excellent life. This, then, is the complete good, which is what happiness is.” (Aristotle 2013, p. 16)
What is the empirical foundation of eudaimonia and how does it relate to wellbeing? There are two different conceptions of eudaimonia, the self-determination theory and the purpose/virtuous self development view. I will show that not only does eudaimonia exist, it is distinct from hedonia, and either conception dramatically affects a person’s wellbeing. I will use five different research methods to support this hypothesis.
Neural Correlates
Bates et al (2014) found evidence for the empirical neural correlate of eudaimonia. They defined eudaimonia as personal growth, self-acceptance and purpose in contrast to the self-determination theory. Specific psychological properties distinguish eudaimonia,
“reflected in high levels of self-awareness, self-reflection and cognitive and emotional control in the service of dynamic goal selection and goal pursuit, and self governance and reflection.” (Bates et al. 2014, pp. 617-618)
With a sample of 70 participants who completed a questionnaire, structural magnetic resonance images were taken to see if there was any sign of gray matter volume associated with eudaimonia. It was found by Bates et al. (2014) that eudaimonic well being has a positive association with the right insular cortex gray matter volume. (p. 615) See fMRI image below:
Fig. 1 Right insular cortex showing gray matter volume for eudaimonia.
Note. Bates et al. 2014, p. 617.
Cross Sectional Survey
Chen and Zeng (2021) were interested in reducing the inconsistency and ambiguity from the research on the effects of one’s orientation priorities towards a hedonic or eudaimonic lifestyle. They wanted to know how one’s priority towards either a eudaimonic view of happiness or a hedonic view would impact their wellbeing. There is a reciprocal relationship between both eudaimonic and hedonic approaches,
“According to the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions, positive emotions expand an individual’s immediate thought-action repertoire…thus, people are more likely to engage in eudaimonic activities when they are in positive affective states.” (Chen and Zeng 2021, pp.2)
As a method, 312 Chinese undergrads conducted surveys to determine their hedonic and eudaimonic orientation, priorities of those orientations in relation to each other, and their level of well being and affect.
Eudaimonia was defined by a sense of meaning in one’s life and life satisfaction whereas hedonic orientation was a focus on material goods or short term pleasures. Chen and Zeng (2021) distinguish the effect of each orientation stating,
“daily eudaimonic behaviors (e.g., expressing gratitude for something someone did) were found to enhance positive emotions, one’s sense of meaning in life, and life satisfaction; in contrast, daily hedonic behaviors (e.g., buying new jewelry or electronics equipment just for oneself) did not affect the above happiness indicators”. (pp. 2-3)
A focus on a hedonic lifestyle will have serious limitations for one’s well-being. If a person uses a hedonic orientation to bolster their current emotional state, they can then use that positive state to pursue broader eudaimonic goals, thereby enhancing well-being and self-satisfaction.
Problems occur when a person is faced with a conflict between both orientations and decides the hedonic over the eudaimonic. When in a dilemma between the two, a eudaimonic orientation will benefit one’s well-being more. Chen and Zeng state,
“Prioritizing eudaimonia over hedonia may boost happiness directly, perhaps by affecting individuals’ decision-making in situations with goal conflicts… Pursuing eudaimonia in ways such as seeking personal growth or contributing to others typically requires individuals to exert extra efforts or make certain sacrifices…, and is thus more or less in conflict with hedonic goals…people’s behavioral choices in situations with goal conflict have a relatively stronger effect on their well-being." (Chen and Zeng 2021, p. 9)
It is important to keep in mind what one’s fundamental values are and goals in life beyond short term pleasure. When we make decisions, we determine the quality of our lives, in terms of well-being, based on how we let go of hedonic, surface level pleasures for more meaningful courses of action. We can develop a healthy perspective and set of habits to assist ourselves throughout our lives so that we can become comfortable letting go of low meaning hedonic decisions for more robust and meaningful eudaimonic approaches towards life. This will inherently give us greater overall meaning in life.
Chen and Zeng (2021) found that having a eudaimonic orientation was a positive indicator of a person's psychological well being. If a person had a hedonic orientation, they were found to also have a positive effect. If a person valued eudaimonia more than hedonia, then both orientations increased their wellbeing. If a person valued or prioritized hedonia more than eudaimonia, the benefits of their well being declined or vanished for both orientations. The researchers state that
“hedonic and eudaimonic orientations contribute to improving individual well-being only when people prioritize eudaimonia over hedonia.” (Chen and Zeng 2021, p. 10)
From these results, the authors point towards expanding cultural factors of individualistic and collectivistic participants with different orientation priorities for future research.
Generational Cross Sectional Survey
Karaoylas et al. (2017) took a different approach by doing a cross sectional study of different generations in a family. They used a 4 part classification system for eudaimonia based on:
orientation: why people behave based on values and motives,
behaviours: the nature of what people’s actions and the specific characteristics of activities like challenge,
experiences: the subjective aspect in evaluating, their affect and how they appraise cognitively, and
functioning: the psychological outcome of mental health. (pp. 2467)
Specifically, they were interested in seeing how a self-determination theory of eudaimonia changes over the lifespan in the orientation of living well and functional needs are met for autonomy, competence and relatedness. The STD model of eudaimonia emphasizes that people that pursue intrinsic motivations and autonomous goals develop an open and accepting mind to the present experience and moment. (Karaoylas et al., 2017, p. 2468)
To measure how this model changes over lifespan, 66 different families comprising an undergrad student, their parents and grandparent all completed a questionnaire that measured their health, aspirations, goal autonomy, mindfulness, psychological need fulfillment, purpose/growth and life satisfaction. (Karaoylas et al., 2017, p. 2470-73) Future research can expand samples beyond high SES groups and undergraduate students.
The first finding was that being older was positively associated with the eudaimonic orientation of living well. Older people were more mindful of selecting realistic goals and had intrinsic values of self-acceptance and intimacy whereas younger people valued extrinsically motivated things like money and popularity. Karaolyas et al (2017) state,
"the goals individuals choose (i.e., those that are intrinsically rewarding) and how they go about pursuing those goals (i.e., with autonomy and mindfulness) are important indicators of eudaimonic living.” (pp. 2480)
Secondly, as people got older they had more life satisfaction but less purpose and growth. The functional aspect of eudaimonia, purpose and growth was lower because as we age we have less opportunities for growth. The final finding was that mindfulness increased with age and complemented an autonomous lifestyle which supports one meeting their basic psychological needs.
“Mindfulness is essential to eudaimonia, because the eudaimonic individual needs to be aware and attentive in order to choose goals that are worth pursuing and reject goals that are not.” (Karaoylas et al. 2017, pp. 2481)
Karaoylas et al. (2017) concludes the results from their study by stating the benefits from again goes beyond just being satisfied hedonically with life to include fundamental emotional benefits relative to a eudaimonic lifestyle. (p. 2483) As people age, they develop more eudaimonic traits towards life in contrast to their younger family members.
Workplace Longitudinal Study
In regards to eudaimonia in the context of the workplace, Turban and Yan (2016) sought to see how an orientation towards either hedonia or eudaimonia would affect one’s attitude towards their job and extra role behaviors; things outside of one’s explicit duties that end up helping the workplace. The definition of eudaimonia used here is focused on personal growth and self-fulfillment in the context of community, not the SDT, and hedonia is attaining pleasure and avoiding pain. As a macro-theory of motivation, self-determination theory focuses on one’s psychological needs of autonomy, being competent and a sense of relatedness influencing our wellbeing.
Turban and Yan (2016) define eudaimonia generally as a “[focus] on actualizing one’s potential while pursuing one’s purpose in life in a virtuous manner” and in terms of the workplace as
“the subjective experience that work helps one grow, provides a sense of purpose and contributes to a larger community.” (p. 1007)
There is a difference between an employee finding something pleasant and fun and having purpose in one’s role at work. Workers will experience eudaimonia if they have opportunities for learning, developing one’s potential and using that learning and potential towards a goal-oriented activity with purpose.
Turban and Yan (2016) wanted to know how the relationship between hedonia and eudaimonia determines attitude towards one’s satisfaction with their job, affective commitment, intentions to quit, and extra-role behaviors of helping others, speaking well of the company and taking initiative. (p. 1008) If hedonia and eudaimonia are different constructs, the outcomes on these factors would be different for each value.
“Workers with high eudaimonia experience work as valuable and understand how to direct their effort toward impactful activities. When individuals experience greater hedonia (i.e. more positive feelings), they have more energy and exert more effort, which helps them build psychological, physical and social resources.” (Turban and Yan 2016, p. 1009)
Both of the constructs will provide an important contribution to the workplace. Developing intrinsic motivations will enhance eudaimonic prosocial outcomes of being persistent in one’s performance and creativity. The more eudaimonia one experiences at work, the more hedonia they will experience as well.
The method conducted by Turban and Yan (2016) was a longitudinal study over two time periods of 1000 randomly selected administrative staff at a university. The group was sent two surveys at different time intervals, the second was 2 weeks after the first, to measure job attitude and extra role behaviors. The majority of the 528 participants who completed the second survey were female. Future research would benefit from varying the demographics of the sample because most were female and measures other than self-report.
Turban and Yan (2016) found that eudaimonia and hedonia are different constructs and that eudaimonia is higher-ordered. The main finding is that in addition to making the workplace more pleasant in a hedonic context, it is best for employers to support personal growth, a sense of purpose and feeling significant socially.
“Eudaimonia had stronger effects on the extra-role behaviors than hedonia, whereas hedonia had a stronger relationship with job satisfaction.” (Turban and Yan 2016, p. 1015)
The more eudaimonia a person has, in the sense of growth, purpose and being significant, the more prosocial they will be in the workplace. The second finding, that higher hedonia synergistically increases eudaimonic prosocial behavior also supports the happy-productive worker hypothesis. Turban and Yan (2016) stress how it is important for employers to use transformational leadership to employees' contribution towards the company's mission creating meaning in their work.
“Employees are more likely to experience eudaimonia when managers highlight how employees contribute to the firm’s mission, and/or allow employees to meet beneficiaries of their work.” (Turban and Yan 2016, p. 1016)
Clearly, it is important to promote both eudaimonic and hedonic orientations at the workplace for they interrelate and support each other.
Job Loss Case Study
Gazzola and Synard (2016) developed a case study, interview analysis of 20 technology sector workers to understand how eudaimonia affected one’s wellbeing in the context of job loss.
“Eudaimonia originates from Aristotle with eu translated as good (e.g. virtuous) while daimon refers to one’s true self.” (Gazzola and Synard 2016, p. 247)
They want to include five different theoretical conceptualizations of eudaimonia:
becoming one’s best self/self-realization
pursuit of excellence and virtue
life meaning
personal growth and,
autonomous self-congruence (Gazzola and Synard 2016, p. 247)
Alternative evaluations of wellbeing observe a person’s sense of resilience with is their ability to recover or maintain wellbeing after adversity and post-traumatic growth being a positive change, psychologically, one experiences when they are struggling with circumstances in life. (p.248)
To gather data, a collection of unstructured written narratives, questionnaires, and semi-structured interviews were used. Participants were asked to describe their experience of job loss and factors relating to their wellbeing. A thematic analysis approach was used to code themes within the case studies to analyze the data for key themes and subthemes. The themes observed were:
life evaluation (view of state in life)
transitory experience (emotional wellbeing)
sense of growth and grounding
environmental mastery and stability
mental health/ill-being
motivational mindsets/conditions (Gazzola and Synard 2016, p. 250)
Future research can seek conditions beyond job loss and quantitative approaches to the role of eudaimonia in a person’s life. From these themes, eudaimonia was shown to be supported through self-development, realization and congruence aligning with purpose and life meaning. (Gazzole and Synard 2016, p. 258)
Wellbeing is seen as both an outcome and a process, the objectivity and subjectivity, the ‘what’ of wellbeing, plus the experience of wellbeing, the ‘how’.
The ‘what’ of wellbeing includes:
absence of mental ill-being/ill-health
experiencing pleasure and the absence of pain
purpose and meaning in life
certainty, security, stability, and control, and
accomplishment, achievement, and success.
The ‘how’ of well-being includes:
self-developing/self-realizing/ self-congruent
adaptable, coping well, and resilient
centered and steadfast
optimistic and hopeful, and
positive-in-general. (Gazzole and Synard 2016, p. 256)
It is important for us to learn a sense of mindfulness for each of these properties to maximize ‘the good life.’ Growing up and becoming an adult necessarily means that we take responsibility for ourselves which means actively attending to these properties throughout our lives and putting effort into specific areas that need it.
Gassola and Synards (2016) study depicts that well being occurs over different temporal periods, life evaluation of the past, transitory experiencing of the present and motivational mindsets orienting one towards the future. (p. 255) Eudaimonia is related to the what of wellbeing through one’s purpose and meaning, whereas the how of wellbeing is related to eudaimonia through self development, realization and congruence. Both eudaimonia and hedonia are related in outcomes for extra-role behaviours and job satisfaction respectively. Both affect synergistically turnover intentions, one’s commitment to the job, interpersonal prosocial behaviours. The researchers confirmed the ‘happy-productive’ hypothesis for workers on both domains even though what they affect is different. (p. 1015)
Conclusion
It was shown not only that eudaimonia has empirical foundations but even though there is a relation to, it is distinct from hedonia and is directly related to our wellbeing from both conceptualizations: the self-determination theory and the personal development of excellence view. Embodying both an autonomous, intrinsically motivated SDT view of eudaimonia and the pursuit of personal excellence Aristotelian view, in combination with some hedonic buffers, will lead to the greatest wellbeing.
References
Aristotle (2013). Eudemian Ethics (B. Inwood & R. Woolf, Trans.). Cambridge University Press.
Bates, T. C., Lewis, G. J., & Rees, G. (2014). Neural correlates of the good life: eudaimonic well-being is associated with insular cortex volume. SCAN, (9), 615-618. doi.org/10.1093/scan/nst032
Chen, H. & Zeng, Z, (2021). When Do Hedonic and Eudaimonic Orientations Lead to Happiness? Moderating Effects of Orientation Priority. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, (18) 9798, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189798
Karaoylas, E. C., Mackenzie, C. S., & Starzyk, K. B. (2018). 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: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 19(8), 2465–2487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9932-4
Synard, Jacquline., Gazzola, Nicola. (2017) Happiness, eudaimonia, and other holy grails: What can job loss teach us about ‘One-size-fits-all’ theories of well-being?. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 12(3), 246-262. doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1225116
Turban, D. B, & Yan, W. (2016). Relationship of Eudaimonia and Hedonia with Work Outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(6), 1006–1020. doi.org/10.1108/JMP-07-2015-0271
Kommentare