Living Well, Not Just Feeling Good: The Psychology of Eudaimonia

Let’s consider two people. The first one sits on the couch in the evening with the TV on, eating comfort food, and avoiding things that are challenging or uncomfortable. The second goes to a community centre in the evenings, learns a new skill, and has some difficult but honest discussions with loved ones. If one were to do a survey to determine how happy someone is at a particular moment, they would probably get the first person’s score higher on any given night. But the past decades of psychological research indicate that the second person is, by nearly every meaningful measure of well-being, living better.

These two lives highlight one of the most enduring and crucial distinctions in the psychology of human flourishing: between the pursuit of “well-being” through pleasure and pain avoidance on the one hand, and “well-being” lived out in terms of values, potential achievement and meaningful life on the other. In this article, we will discuss what eudaimonia is, the findings on eudaimonia, and how a eudaimonic life looks in practice.

Read More: Eudaimonic vs Hedonic Well-Being 

The Differences between Hedonia and Eudaimonia

Hedonia is a contrast to eudaimonia, a term of ancient Greek philosophy. The hedonist tradition, which goes back to Epicurus, advocated the maximisation of pleasure and the minimisation of pain as a way of achieving the good life. The term used by Aristotle, eudaimonia, is more difficult to translate. It’s sometimes translated in English as “happiness,”. But it more accurately translates to “human flourishing” or “living well and doing well. Aristotle saw eudaimonia not as a feeling but as an activity, as what occurs when a person lives fully according to his highest capacities and deepest values (Ryan & Deci, 2001).

This distinction from old age has been translated into empirical studies in modern psychology. The hedonic approach in psychology emphasises the individual’s sense of well-being, which includes evaluating life satisfaction, positive emotions, and the absence of negative emotions. The eudaimonic tradition is about psychological health and well-being, as assessed by eudaimonic dimensions like personal growth, purposefulness, autonomy, mastery, and positive relationships.

These are not synonyms of each other, but each measures a different thing. They are measuring something different in life, and they can be very different. An individual may feel intense positive emotion at the moment, as well as having a life that is meaningless, uninformative, or lost. A person may experience deep eudaimonic well-being as he pursues a goal that is truly hard and causes some pain (Ryff, 1989).

A study by Fredrickson and colleagues (2013) comes to us in this regard. The study compared the gene expression profiles of individuals with high hedonic and high eudaimonic levels. The results were striking- a pro-benevolent gene expression profile characterised by lower gene expression levels of inflammatory and stress-related genes was linked to high eudaimonic well-being. However, hedonic well-being alone was correlated with a gene expression signature similar to chronic stress. The study argued that good feelings and good living are not only psychologically different, but biologically different.

Read More: When Nothing Feels Good: Understanding Anhedonia in Mood Disorders

The six dimensions of psychological well-being 

Carol Ryff’s (1989) model of eudaimonic psychological well-being is the most commonly cited model of psychological well-being in current studies and is structured around six dimensions of psychological well-being, which are not mutually exclusive but are related to each other. Each of these helps to make sense of what eudaimonia is like in realistic life and what it is not.

1. Self-acceptance involves having a positive but honest attitude toward oneself, recognising both strengths and weaknesses but without over-emphasising self-criticism or self-deception. It is not about achievement-based self-esteem; it is self-esteem that is grounded and stable, an acceptance of oneself (Ryff, 1989).
2. Personal growth is a continuous feeling of development, of being still growing, changing, developing more and more capable, more and more open. A person low on this dimension feels trapped and sees that there aren’t opportunities for growth in life.
3. Purpose in life is also having a sense that life has direction and meaning, that there are things to do or reach for and activities that relate to something greater. This dimension has repeatedly been found to be one of the best predictors of long-term psychological well-being (Ryff & Singer, 1998).
4. Environmental mastery refers to the ability to manage one’s daily environment effectively, to shape one’s environment, to select contexts that are appropriate with one’s values and needs, and to feel competent to deal with what life brings.
5. Autonomy is feeling self-determining, doing what is important to oneself, rather than what others are pushing for, and resisting social pressure to conform where it is not in line with one’s personal values.
6. Positive relationships with others are the existence of warm, trusting and caring relationships. Interestingly, this is not so much about the number of relationships an individual may have as it is about the depth and quality of the connections consistent with findings of research on friendship quality (Ryff, 1989).

The Fully Functioning Person and Self-Actualization

One thing that was familiar to most of us in psychology is the eudaimonic tradition, which is represented by the hierarchy of needs put forth by Abraham Maslow that moves from the basic needs of survival (food, shelter, safety) to belonging to others and the desire for esteem to self-actualisation. At the top of Maslow’s pyramid is the need to become what one is most capable of becoming, to self-actualise (Maslow, 1943). He engaged in the study of individuals whom he believed to be self-actualised, including historical figures like Abraham Lincoln and Eleanor Roosevelt, and found shared traits- they possess a sense of purpose, enjoy uncertainty, have deep (but selective) connections, are spontaneous, creative, and interested in causes outside themselves.

Alongside Maslow’s tradition of humanistic psychologists, Carl Rogers wrote that psychological health is the state of being a ‘fully functioning person’, someone who is open to experience instead of being defensive, lives in the present moment instead of in the past, trusts their own inner guidance as to what is right for them, and grows throughout their life. But, most importantly, Rogers said, “The fully functioning person is not always happy.” They experience emotions at a deep level: joy and grief, excitement and disappointment, love and loss without suppressing them. Their health does not depend on emotional stability. Rather, it is emotional openness, being open to life as it is (Rogers, 1961).

At the time, Maslow and Rogers were developing their ideas through writing, before researchers developed formal methods to test and apply them. Empirical studies following this, however, have generally corroborated their main assertions. Research has repeatedly demonstrated that individuals who experience a sense of personal growth and purpose, as well as being able to live in a way that feels real for them, also are more likely to be happy in life, to be physically healthy, to have strong relationships and to respond positively to stress, even if their emotional lives during the day are happy in some ways and not in others (Waterman, 1993).

Read More: Humanistic and Existential Psychology: Foundations, Philosophies, and Contributions

The Meaning of Life

Perhaps one of the most eudaimonic of all dimensions of well-being is “meaning in life”: that is, the sense that one’s life has meaning, that there are things worth doing and caring about. It is also one of the strongest predictors. A large-scale meta-analysis of more than 160,000 people in various countries, conducted by Czekierda et al(2017), revealed that increased sense of meaning in life was significantly related to decreased mortality, improved physical health, reduced depression and anxiety and increased overall satisfaction with life across age groups, cultures, and socioeconomic factors.

Martin Seligman, one of the founders of positive psychology, proposed a model of flourishing that includes five components. These are Positive Emotions, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment (Seligman, 2011). Engagement refers to deep involvement in an activity, often called “flow.” It is a state in which people become so absorbed in what they do that time seems to pass quickly. Importantly, there are five components, with positive emotions being one. The model clearly states that ‘feeling good’ is not a sign of a good, meaningful life. Rather, it reflects a life in which the person actively engages with others. They build meaningful connections, pursue a sense of purpose, and achieve goals that matter to them.

In his book Man’s Search for Meaning, psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl noted an important observation. In the most extreme circumstances, humans who found purpose in their lives survived and were able to cope better than those who did not. His basic finding was that man can find meaning in work, in love, and even in unavoidable suffering. He was able to substantiate this finding with empirical research. According to Frankl (1959), suffering can be endured with dignity and purpose.

Therapists in their offices and philosophers in their books don’t create all real-life models of eudaimonic living. A parent raising a child with complex needs for years in a stressful, often not immediately rewarding way. But no one could say they are feeling very good about life overall, as well as having a lot of stress in day-to-day life. A researcher may spend 10 years working on a project that may not produce any results. Yet, if they remain driven by genuine intellectual curiosity and an important question, they live eudaimonically. Common to all of these examples is not the positive emotion. But rather the meaning, engagement, and authentic expression of what the person cares most about.

Read More: The Fear of Being Average: Why Modern Achievement Pressure Is Hurting Mental Health

Conclusion

The psychology of eudaimonia does not claim that pleasure is evil. It does not discourage people from seeking comfort or suggest that suffering is good. It asserts something more specific. A life lived purely for pleasure, without purpose, meaning, growth, or real connection, is a thinner psychic life than it could be. The most reliable and enduring indicators of human well-being do not measure a person’s subjective feelings at any given moment. They measure the extent to which a person truly lives.

All of Ryff’s 6 dimensions, Maslow’s self-actualisation, Rogers’ fully functioning person, Seligman’s PERMA, and Frankl’s search for meaning have one thing in common. They all focus on the good life. The deepest nature of the good life isn’t the comfiest life. It is the most involved, most values-oriented, most genuinely human one.

References +

• Czekierda, K., Banik, A., Park, C. L., & Luszczynska, A. (2017). Meaning in life and physical health: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, 11(4), 387–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2017.1327325 
• Frankl, V. E. (1959). Man’s search for meaning. Beacon Press.
• Fredrickson, B. L., Grewen, K. M., Coffey, K. A., Algoe, S. B., Firestine, A. M., Arevalo, J. M. G., Ma, J., & Cole, S. W. (2013). A functional genomic perspective on human well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(33), 13684–13689. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1305419110 
• Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346 
• Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Houghton Mifflin.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141 
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069 
• Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (1998). The contours of positive human health. Psychological Inquiry, 9(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0901_1 
• Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Free Press.
• Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The meaning in life questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 53(1), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80 
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.678