Different Categories of Definitions and Common Elements Across Definitions

Following this section, I use one specific approach to defining hedonia and eudaimonia, but before I do, I would like to outline the full range of approaches.

In a systematic review of psychology definitions of eudaimonia and hedonia (Huta & Waterman, 2013), we found that the definitions fall into four different categories of analysis. The categories are orientations, behaviors, experiences, and functioning, as detailed below.

Definitions of eudaimonia have been as follows:

1. Orientations: Orientations, values, motives, and goals, that is, the “why” of behavior—for example, valuing growth; seeking challenge; seeking personal excellence; wanting to serve a higher and meaningful purpose; having autonomous motivation and intrinsic goals; having goals that are valuable in themselves and part of one's identity (Bauer, McAdams, & Sakaeda, 2005; Delle Fave, Massimini, & Bassi, 2011; Fowers, Mollica, & Procacci, 2010; Huta & Ryan, 2010; Peterson, Park, & Seligman, 2005; Ryan, Huta, & Deci, 2008; Vittersø, Oelmann, & Wang, 2009).
2. Behaviors: Behavioral content and activity characteristics, that is, the “what” of behavior—for example, volunteering; giving money to those in need; expressing gratitude; mindfulness; engaging in challenging activities to which one brings commensurate skill (Delle Fave & Massimini, 1988; Ryan et al., 2008; Steger, Kashdan, & Oishi, 2007).
3. Experiences: Subjective experiences, emotions, and cognitive appraisals—for example, feelings of meaning and value; personal expressiveness; interest and engagement (Delle Fave, Brdar, Freire, Vella-Brodrick, & Wissing, 2011; Vittersø, Dyrdal, Røysamb, 2005; Waterman, 1993).
4. Functioning: Indices of a person's overall positive psychological functioning, mental health, and flourishing, that is, how well a person is doing—for example, autonomy; competence; relatedness; purpose in life; personal growth; self-acceptance; social well-being; self-discovery; self-actualization; development of one's best potentials; habitual intense involvement and effort (Keyes, 2002; Ryan et al., 2008; Ryff, 1989; Waterman, 1993).

Definitions of hedonia have fallen into three of the categories of analysis:

1. Orientations: For example, seeking pleasure, enjoyment, comfort, or relaxation, whether or not these aims are achieved; seeking homeostasis; having a mindset in which one evaluates things as good and bad (Huta & Ryan, 2010; Peterson et al., 2005; Vittersø, Søholt, Hetland, Thoresen, & Røysamb, 2010).
2. Behaviors: For example, going to a big party; attending a sporting event or concert; going on a long walk; listening to music (Steger et al., 2007).
3. Experiences: For example, positive affect; life satisfaction; happiness; low negative affect; low depression (Bauer, McAdams, & Pals, 2008; Delle Fave, Brdar, et al., 2011; Fowers et al., 2010; Keyes, 2002; Ryan et al., 2008; Ryff, 1989; Vittersø et al., 2005; Waterman, 1993).

Although there are certainly differences between the definitions that various psychologists have used, I will not dwell on the differences here. Instead, I will distill the concepts that emerge most consistently across definitions, regardless of the category of analysis, to anchor the reader's understanding of hedonia and eudaimonia. (See also Huta, 2013b, for an earlier summary of common elements across eudaimonia definitions.)

As shown in Huta and Waterman (2013), there is clear agreement that hedonia involves pleasure, enjoyment, and satisfaction, whether it is construed as the experience of these variables or as an orientation or behavior aimed at seeking these experiences. The majority of researchers have also associated hedonia with an absence of distress (which can be rephrased as a presence of comfort), or with an affective balance such that positive experiences outweigh negative experiences. In this chapter, I will assume that hedonia does include the concept of reduced distress. (See Vittersø, 2013, for an additional discussion of hedonia.)

Conceptions of eudaimonia have varied more widely than those of hedonia. Nevertheless, Huta and Waterman (2013) found that four core definitional elements appeared across most or all definitions: (1) authenticity: clarifying one's true self and deep values, staying connected with them, and acting in accord with them; (2) meaning: understanding a bigger picture, relating to it, and contributing to it (the bigger picture may include broader aspects of your own life or identity, a purpose, the long term, your community, society, the ecosystem, or even a conception of how the entire world works or is meant to work); (3) excellence: striving for higher quality and higher standards in one's behavior, performance, accomplishments, and ethics; and (4) growth: actualizing what one feels is right for oneself, fulfilling one's potential, and pursuing personal goals; personal growth, learning, improving, and seeking challenges; and maturing as a human being.

Although hedonia and eudaimonia are distinct concepts, both theoretically and empirically (e.g., Huta & Ryan, 2010; Peterson et al., 2005), I should add that they are by no means mutually exclusive, and that they often co-occur. Indeed, some of the most fulfilling pursuits are the ones in which eudaimonia and hedonia are so seamlessly blended that they become one.

Hedonic and Eudaimonic Orientations—The Category of Analysis Focused on Here

The study of all four categories of analysis—orientations, behaviors, experiences, and functioning—can give us a well-rounded understanding of the whole process of eudaimonia or hedonia. However, I would argue that one category is most directly at the heart of what is meant by eudaimonia and hedonia: orientations. I believe that Aristotle was mainly talking about orientations, and that it is primarily about orientations—the attitudes, values, motives, and goals a person can choose. All we have control over in life is our choices and aims; we cannot ensure the success of our aims (i.e., functioning, experiences) or the feelings of well-being that may result (i.e., experiences). Thus, choices are more fruitful targets for intervention than are outcomes. It also seems most fair to describe the nature of a person's life in terms of their efforts rather than their successes. And a conceptualization in terms of choices brings the focus of eudaimonia and hedonia inward rather than outward to external criteria and on the process of life rather than the outcomes—a focus that seems more intrinsic, more engaged, and richer. Even when choosing among orientations and behaviors, I would treat orientations as more fundamental, since two people can engage in the same surface behavior for very different reasons (Huta, 2013a; Huta & Ryan, 2010).

Thus, I would conclude that eudaimonia and hedonia are most fundamentally orientations. For the remainder of this chapter, this is the category of analysis that I will focus on, and the review of research findings in the next section will focus on the measures that clearly assess both eudaimonia and hedonia as orientations—the Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives for Activities (HEMA) scale that I developed (Huta & Ryan, 2010) and the Orientations to Happiness Questionnaire (OTHQ) based on Seligman's conceptualization (Peterson et al., 2005).

The HEMA scale inquires, “To what degree [do you typically approach your activities]/[did you approach your activities today/this week/etc.] with each of the following intentions, whether or not you actually [achieve]/[achieved] your aim?” The eudaimonic motives are “Seeking to pursue excellence or a personal ideal,” “Seeking to use the best in yourself,” “Seeking to develop a skill, learn, or gain insight into something,” and “Seeking to do what you believe in.” The hedonic motives are “Seeking enjoyment,” “Seeking pleasure,” “Seeking fun,” “Seeking relaxation,” and “Seeking to take it easy.” Participants give ratings of 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). The OTHQ states, “Please indicate the degree to which each of the following statements applies to you from 1 (very much unlike me) to 5 (very much like me).” Sample items assessing eudaimonia (which Seligman, 2002, calls the life of meaning) are “My life serves a higher purpose,” and “I have a responsibility to make the world a better place.” Sample hedonic items (the life of pleasure) are “Life is too short to postpone the pleasures it can provide,” and “In choosing what to do, I always take into account whether it will be pleasurable.” Overall, the HEMA focuses on the excellence, authenticity, and growth elements of eudaimonia and the pleasure and comfort elements of hedonia; the OTHQ focuses on the meaning element of eudaimonia and the pleasure element of hedonia. Nevertheless, I have found (in unpublished data) that the subscales of the HEMA and OTHQ show convergent and discriminant validity. Furthermore, the research reviewed in the next section has often produced similar patterns of results for the two scales.

Empirical Findings

Next, I summarize research on hedonic and eudaimonic orientations to give the reader a sense of how hedonia and eudaimonia differ and how they behave in combination. Where I say “hedonia relates more,” I imply a comparison with eudaimonia, and vice versa. Results refer to the trait level unless otherwise specified; the trait level focuses on a person's life as a whole, linking his or her typical or average degree of eudaimonia or hedonia with his or her typical or average score on another variable; the state level, by contrast, focuses on a given moment or time period, linking a person's hedonia or eudaimonia at that time with another variable at that time.

Hedonia and eudaimonia relate to somewhat different experiences, so that people who pursue both hedonia and eudaimonia have a more well-rounded picture of well-being than people who pursue only one or the other; hedonia relates more to carefreeness (at trait and state levels), positive affect (only at the state level), and low negative affect (only at the state level), whereas eudaimonia relates more to meaning (at trait and state levels), elevation (at the trait level), self-connectedness (at trait and state levels), work satisfaction, and low depression (Huta, 2013a; Huta & Ryan, 2010; Proyer, Annen, Eggimann, Schneider, & Ruch, 2012; Schueller & Seligman, 2010).

Hedonia and eudaimonia relate equally to vitality (at both trait and state levels) (Huta, 2013a; Huta & Ryan, 2010). Hedonia and eudaimonia relate equally to life satisfaction in studies with the HEMA scale (Huta, 2013a; Huta & Ryan, 2010) and some studies with the OTHQ (Chan, 2009; Chen, 2010; Peterson, Ruch, Beerman, Park, & Seligman, 2007; Proyer et al., 2012; Ruch, Harzer, Proyer, Park, & Peterson, 2010), but eudaimonia relates more to life satisfaction (and to happiness) in other studies with the OTHQ (Anić & Tončić, 2013; Kumano, 2011; Park, Peterson, & Ruch, 2009; Peterson et al., 2005, 2007; Schueller & Seligman, 2010; Vella-Brodrick, Park, & Peterson, 2009).

With the HEMA scale, hedonia and eudaimonia relate equally to positive affect (Huta, 2013a; Huta & Ryan, 2010), but with the OTHQ, eudaimonia relates more to positive affect (Anić & Tončić, 2013; Chan, 2009; Park et al., 2009; Peterson et al., 2005; Schueller & Seligman, 2010; Vella-Brodrick et al., 2009).

People who pursue both hedonia and eudaimonia have higher degrees of various well-being outcomes than people who pursue only one or the other (Anić & Tončić, 2013; Huta & Ryan, 2010; Peterson et al., 2005).

Hedonic activity may be associated with greater immediate well-being, whereas eudaimonic activity may be associated with greater long-term well-being (Huta, 2013a; Huta & Ryan, 2010).

Eudaimonic pursuits are associated with a more positive impact on the surrounding world, including close friends and relatives (Huta, 2012; Huta, Pelletier, Baxter, & Thompson, 2012), the broader community (Huta, 2013a; Huta, Pearce, & Voloaca, 2013), and the environment (Huta et al., 2013); generally, eudaimonia is more related to indices of long-term perspective, caring about the bigger picture, and abstract rather than concrete thinking (Huta et al., 2013).

Hedonically oriented and eudaimonically oriented individuals have somewhat different profiles on other individual differences, giving us a sense of how their natures differ: Of the Values in Action character strengths and virtues (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), hedonia relates more to playfulness, whereas eudaimonia relates more to judgment, wisdom, and religiousness; hedonia relates negatively to humility (Buschor, Proyer, & Ruch, 2013; Huta, 2013a; Peterson et al., 2007; Ruch, Proyer, & Weber, 2010a). Hedonia relates more to the excitement-seeking and gregariousness components of extraversion, whereas eudaimonia relates more to characteristics reflecting introversion, including introspectiveness, subjectivity/nonconformism, enjoyment of solitude, enjoyment of peace and quiet, and a focus on thoughts and ideas (Huta, 2013a). Eudaimonia relates more to integrated motivation and to a composite of intrinsic goals, whereas hedonia relates more to a composite of extrinsic goals (Anić & Tončić, 2013; Huta, 2013a). In terms of demographics, hedonia decreases with age, education, skill required in one's profession, religiousness, and being married, and eudaimonia increases with skill required in one's profession and religiousness (Peterson et al., 2005; Ruch et al., 2010; Schueller & Seligman, 2010). Additional findings show that eudaimonia relates more to self-control (Anić & Tončić, 2013), vocational identity achievement (Hirschi, 2011), and career success (Proyer et al., 2012), whereas hedonia relates more to materialism (Huta, 2013a).

Research on predictors of eudaimonia and hedonia shows the role of several parenting variables: Parental demandingness (expecting maturity, setting limits, providing challenges and enrichment) and parental responsiveness (being nurturing, taking the time to explain, listening, encouraging self-expression) both relate to the adult child's eudaimonia but not his or her hedonia, suggesting that rearing a child to be eudaimonic requires greater investment (Huta, 2012). Adult children pursue eudaimonia (or hedonia) whether their parents merely verbally endorsed eudaimonia (or hedonia) or actually role-modeled it; adult children also derive increased well-being from eudaimonia (or hedonia) if their parents role-modeled it, but derive little or no well-being if their parents only verbally endorsed eudaimonia (or hedonia) (Huta, 2012).

The Complementary Natures of Hedonia and Eudaimonia

The previous review of definitions and findings gives us an outline of what is meant by hedonia and eudaimonia. I would like, now, to go even deeper, toward the very heart of the hedonic–eudaimonic distinction. I do not think the distinction is some artifact of a tradition hailing from ancient Greece. I think it speaks to two very real psychological functions.

There are certainly concepts other than hedonia and eudaimonia (as I define them) that have been associated with a good life, including relationships, engagement, accomplishment, harmony, physical health, and attitudes like optimism; extrinsic values such as material wealth, image, status, power, and popularity; and basic circumstances such as safety, health, freedom, and essential material resources (Delle Fave, Brdar, et al., 2011; Grouzet et al., 2005; Kasser & Ryan, 1993; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987; Seligman, 2011; Tafarodi et al., 2012). Eudaimonia and hedonia are not sufficient for an optimal existence, and some of the above variables are needed as well (including relationships, which play a major role in well-being; Diener & Seligman, 2002).

Yet there is something fundamental about the distinction between eudaimonia and hedonia: They play major complementary roles in life. Clarifying these roles can help us to explain why the hedonic–eudaimonic distinction so often appears center stage and to appreciate the importance of having a balance of both pursuits.

Next, I outline several complementary functions. They are not clear-cut, because hedonia includes eudaimonic functions to some degree, and vice versa. And they are rough generalizations that sometimes oversimplify the picture. Nevertheless, they are useful for developing a deeper feel for hedonia and eudaimonia, especially when pursuing them in practice.

Hedonia is about taking something for me, now; eudaimonia is about building something broader for the long term. This is perhaps the most fundamental distinction. Hedonia is a self-nourishing and self-care function—taking care of one's own needs and desires, typically in the present or near future; reaching personal release and peace to replenish, heal, and find a fresh perspective; and “drinking in” nutriments of energy and joy. Eudaimonia is a cultivating function—giving of oneself and investing in a larger aspect of the self, a long-term project, or the surrounding world. Thus, it is roughly about taking versus giving, narrow versus broad perspective, and short-term versus long-term perspective. The mindsets associated with these orientations might be summarized as desire versus care. Hedonic desire need not be seen as vulgar; I am referring to that healthy ability to feel and flow with what one needs and wants and relishes. The prerequisite for eudaimonia is caring in a very general sense, such as thoughtfulness, and caring about quality, rightness, context, or the welfare of others. Deeper still, hedonia and eudaimonia are based on distinct assumptions about oneself: that one has rights versus responsibilities. If one does not feel entitled to happiness, self-nourishment, and taking up space, it is difficult to pursue hedonia in the first place. Eudaimonia, on the other hand, begins when a person takes some responsibility for his or her life and for the implications of his or her actions (Frankl, 1946/1997).

Hedonia is the pursuit of what feels good; eudaimonia is the pursuit of what one believes to be right. Implied in the previous sentence are several distinctions (see also Steger & Shin, 2012, for similar distinctions). First, there is the affective and biological versus cognitive distinction—the desirability of pursuits is gauged in terms of more emotional and physical experiences in hedonia, but in terms of more abstract values and ideals in eudaimonia. We might approximate this by speaking of pleasure versus value. There is an automatic versus effortful distinction. Hedonia proceeds more directly and automatically from our hard wiring. Eudaimonia is a natural inclination as well (Maslow, 1968)—it is fulfilling to use what we have and become all that we can be. However, eudaimonic ideals must first be developed and then actively kept in mind to some degree if they are to be pursued; as such, eudaimonia is more effortful and more easily disrupted (Huta, 2013b). To some degree, there is also a subjective versus objective distinction (Diener, Sapyta, & Suh, 1998). Hedonia aims at activities that are pleasant for the individual in question. Eudaimonia is also largely guided by subjective inner processes and gut feelings, but some eudaimonic aims, such as ethical behavior and maturity, are informed by conceptions of what is universally of high quality in all human beings.

Overall, hedonia is more fundamental, whereas eudaimonia is more elevated. We cannot consider one pursuit “better” than the other; each is important in its own way. Hedonia is more fundamental in the sense that it often takes care of immediate needs and desires and is based on older brain systems that we share with other species. Eudaimonia is a “higher pleasure” (Seligman, 2002) in the sense that it allows people to develop their potential, and it exercises the higher cognitive capacities that are particularly well-developed in humans, such as values, morality, and vision (Huta 2013b; Steger & Shin, 2012). The actual proportions of hedonia and eudaimonia that best suit a person probably vary widely from individual to individual. But if a person does not have at least some hedonia and some eudaimonia, he or she may feel flat and unfulfilled, be more vulnerable to unhappiness, or develop psychopathology. To achieve optimal well-being, we need to have some degree of both complementary functions, and they probably keep each other in check.

Steps Toward Eudaimonia and Hedonia

The definitions, findings, and complementary functions previously discussed clearly indicate the importance of pursuing both hedonia and eudaimonia. This, of course, raises the question of how exactly a person goes about pursuing these. I dedicate the remainder of this chapter to a description of what eudaimonia and hedonia might look like in practice.

I first note, however, that hedonia and eudaimonia are present in various interventions already. For example, prescribing psychotropic medication is a hedonic intervention to the degree that it is treated as a means to alleviate suffering. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (Beck, 2011) includes the hedonic aim of relieving distress and the eudaimonic aim of reducing dysfunction. More strongly in the eudaimonic direction, we find therapies that also aim to reduce distress but place more emphasis on taking suffering as a flag, even an opportunity, indicating the need to move toward greater authenticity, meaning, excellence, or growth. Examples of such interventions are humanistic therapies (e.g., Frankl, 1946/1997; Maslow, 1968; Rogers, 1961), acceptance commitment therapy (Hayes, Luoma, Bond, Masuda, & Lillis, 2006), and well-being therapy (Fava & Tomba, 2009). Some interventions explicitly target the enhancement of both hedonia and eudaimonia, such as quality of life therapy and coaching (Frisch, in press). And a variety of positive psychology interventions are aimed less at alleviating suffering and more at enhancing hedonic and/or eudaimonic aspects of life (Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009).

My aim here is to bring together some key concepts in the pursuit of hedonia and eudaimonia (which will be italicized) that could form the basis of interventions, and of research on those interventions. (The Appendix also lists some measures that could be used by researchers and practitioners.) Applied settings might include coaching, education, organizations, clinical practice, and self-help. In writing this chapter, I sacrificed much depth, illustration, and nuance for the sake of at least touching on many concepts and authors that are relevant; the topic could easily fill a book of its own. I will also say that I consider the following proposal to be a draft that will undoubtedly be revised and expanded as our field gains insight into well-being.

From here on, I use more colloquial language and speak to the reader as “you.” This is in the spirit of more direct and intimate communication because I will be addressing the reader as someone who may be personally interested in the pursuit of hedonia or eudaimonia.

Steps Toward Eudaimonia

The four common elements across most definitions of eudaimonia—authenticity, meaning, excellence, and growth (Huta & Waterman, 2013)—form an excellent framework for the pursuit of eudaimonia. These terms therefore make up the headings of the outline below. The elements are intertwined to some degree, and what I say about one may also apply to others.

Do you have to do all of the things listed here? Certainly not. Only one or two ideas may connect with a need or interest that you currently have.

Steps Toward Hedonia

Through hedonic pursuits, we seek to experience pleasure and enjoyment, relieve distress and strain, and reach satisfaction. Hedonic pursuits cover the full range from physical to emotional, from crude to sublime, from transient to profound. Each part of these ranges can be beneficial if done in the right context and in the right way.

Hedonia can have undesirable consequences when taken to excess or when not balanced by eudaimonia—for example, destructive impulsivity, chronic escapism, addiction, selfishness, antisocial behavior, greed, and unbridled consumerism. (Eudaimonia can certainly be excessive as well.) But when pursued in a healthy way, hedonia not only leads to joy and comfort, but also “fills your tank” and fuels motivation, inspiration, broadened attention, and a desire to build (Fredrickson, 2004). It also gives you a break so you can find a fresh perspective.

Below, I focus only on healthful approaches to hedonia. In its optimal form, hedonia brings out those beautiful primal, sensual, and creature-comfort parts of ourselves that emerge spontaneously when we are fulfilled to our heart's content, well-rested, and free of preoccupations.

It is worth looking at Fordyce's (1983) 14 fundamentals of happiness, which he tested in several interventions. They provide some good advice for pursuing hedonia (focusing on the present, not expecting too much, making happiness a high priority, not worrying needlessly, taking care of yourself), as well as more eudaimonic recommendations (meaningful work, authenticity, planning and organizing, solving rather than ignoring problems), and principles relevant to both eudaimonia and hedonia (engagement, relatedness, positive and optimistic thinking). More recently, Lyubomirsky (2008) identified a partly overlapping list of validated positive psychology interventions: savoring, caring for your body, gratitude, optimism, engagement, avoiding overthinking and comparing yourself with others, relationships, kindness, forgiveness, good coping strategies, goal commitment, and religion and spirituality.

Let me add some comments to these recommendations. So much of well-being is in your perspective, and adopting a positive perspective is something you can learn (Seligman, 1998). It truly is about seeing the cup as half full rather than half empty. You can practice selective attention, focusing on what you have rather than what you don't—there is usually enough bad material in life to justify misery and enough good material to justify happiness, so you can make choices about your focus (Mather & Carstensen, 2003). Be wary of setting expectations too high (or having expectations at all), as it undermines enjoyment (Mauss, Tamir, Anderson, & Savino, 2011; Schooler, Ariely, & Loewenstein, 2003). If you have the attitude that nothing is ever good enough, nothing ever will be. Appreciate how much luckier you are than some people, an attitude called downward social comparison (Wills, 1981). And when things are difficult, balance entitlement with grace, acceptance, and equanimity (processes aided by eudaimonia, to be sure).

Engagement is critical (Seligman, 2011). Get immersed in what you do rather than having an evaluative mindset. Evaluation is useful when change is desired, but otherwise, when you're judging from “outside” yourself, it blocks personal enjoyment (Vittersø et al., 2009)—imagine someone constantly asking “Am I happy yet?” Also, intentional activities (e.g., exercise, hobbies, quality time with family and friends) account for much more of your happiness than circumstances (e.g., getting a raise, getting married, moving to California); intentional activities are sustained and provide variety, and thus counteract hedonic adaptation, the process of getting used to your situation and reverting to previous levels of happiness (Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005). Easiness is not always a gauge of whether a hedonic activity is worthwhile—sometimes activities are more hedonically satisfying when they require effort, be it physical activity or emotional or cognitive investment (sometimes). Furthermore, seeing an activity as just a vehicle to happiness, rather than truly engaging in the activity itself, is an extrinsic mindset (Schooler et al., 2003). Extrinsic motives reduce the genuine connection with an activity that is needed for enjoyment (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Though I've been speaking of hedonia as the “pursuit” of happiness, it's important to interpret this phrase correctly. Happiness cannot be directly commanded or bought. Hedonia is about engaging in joyful and relaxing activities and attitudes, and then somehow happiness comes in its own due time (Martin, 2008). To quote Eleanor Roosevelt, “Happiness is not a goal…it's a by-product of a life well-lived.”

Although happiness cannot be guaranteed, there is nevertheless a way to very much enhance the likelihood of hedonic experience: savoring. It's the process of actively opening your senses, emotions, and cognitive appreciation to indulge in something longer and more fully. Even the little things, especially the little things, can be relished—a great tune, a friend's laughter, or the smell of the flowers. People can savor the present moment or the past by reminiscing and reliving, or the future by anticipating and imagining (Bryant & Veroff, 2007). Savoring processes include physically luxuriating, marveling, basking and self-congratulation, and gratitude (Bryant & Veroff, 2007). Gratitude is a particularly powerful predictor of well-being (Emmons & McCullough, 2003), and it is worth making a habit of celebrating your blessings, perhaps as part of a daily meditation (Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005; Seligman, Rashid, & Parks, 2006). There is also an interpersonal form of savoring—sharing a positive event with others who then engage in active-constructive responding, that is, showing genuine excitement and capitalizing on the event by discussing it further, celebrating, telling others, and so on (Gable, Reis, Impett, & Asher, 2004).

In order to take care of yourself, you need to take the time. Don't hold back on vacations (they are crucial for eudaimonic development, too), and take breaks the rest of the year as well. Wells (2012) proposes a 1-3-2 principle, arguing that people need to rest, take personal time, and completely unplug from work at least 1 hour a day, 3 days a month, and 2 weeks a year. That's probably a bare minimum. Furthermore, different people find different activities fulfilling (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005), and thus it's important to listen to yourself. Pay attention to your (positive) fantasies, wishes, and impulses, and follow through when you can, at least in some small way. You may have gotten into the habit of ignoring these, but they do resurface here and there, and you can build on them. Also, take note of how different activities actually make you feel—we are not always good at predicting what will make us happy (Gilbert & Wilson, 2007).

Finally, I will say that hedonia need not always be a “pursuit.” Sometimes it's good to just be. On a cool day in the height of summer, with the cicadas going and the sound of wind in the trees, who needs anything more than to simply sit? I truly believe, on an existential level, that we are “meant to” enjoy and just be as much as we are “meant to” pursue eudaimonia.

Conclusion

The long-standing theoretical literature on eudaimonia and hedonia, the empirical findings, and the clarification of complementarities all point to the importance of having both pursuits in life. Much research is still needed regarding the outcomes, correlates, and predictors of these pursuits. Nevertheless, we do have enough of a grounding to think about applications. For one thing, discussions of how a person goes about pursuing hedonia and eudaimonia will deepen our understanding of these concepts and help with theoretical integration in more basic research. It will generate hypotheses for research on interventions; there is adequate empirical support for some of the individual elements in my proposal, but research has yet to be conducted on other elements or on combinations of elements. Most importantly, I hope that this chapter will serve as a springboard for discussions of how the vital concepts of eudaimonia and hedonia can concretely be applied to improve peoples' lives. When hedonia and eudaimonia are pursued wisely, with a feel for their deeper natures and intricacies, they can make life full and beautiful.

Summary Points

• Psychology definitions of eudaimonia and/or hedonia fall into different categories of analysis: orientations, behaviors, experiences, or functioning.
• There is good reason to consider the orientations category—the “why” of behavior—to be the most fundamental (though the other categories provide valuable information as well).
• The concepts appearing in most definitions of hedonia are pleasure/enjoyment and low distress; the concepts in most definitions of eudaimonia are authenticity, meaning, excellence, and growth. These sets of concepts can be operationalized as orientations and can be used to anchor and organize well-being interventions.
• Underlying the difference between the two sets of concepts is a distinction between major complementary functions in life, roughly summarized as “taking for me, now” versus “investing in something broader for the longer term.”
• Research on hedonic and eudaimonic orientations shows, among other things, that they relate to somewhat different aspects of personal well-being (e.g., carefreeness versus meaning), and that they together relate to greater well-being than either pursuit alone.
• Finally, the second half of the chapter identifies specific activities and practices that a person can adopt to bring more hedonia and eudaimonia into his or her life. I have tried to provide enough examples, caveats, and principles to give the reader a feel for what these pursuits entail and when they are truly fulfilling, so that you can craft your own path to fulfillment.

Appendix: Measures for Assessing the Outcomes of Practicing Eudaimonia or Hedonia

Here I suggest some measures that might be used by researchers or practitioners when they need to assess the outcomes of practicing eudaimonia or hedonia. The measures can also sometimes be useful self-assessments in our private lives. We may choose to evaluate ourselves when we experience a lack of well-being or feel that a question needs to be answered. But, as discussed earlier, excessive self-assessment can unnecessarily detract attention from engaging with life, make us feel that the glass is half empty rather than half full, and create an evaluative mindset that interferes with the experience of well-being. It's a balance.

R = reverse coded.

References

1. Abuhamdeh, S., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2012). The importance of challenge for the enjoyment of intrinsically motivated, goal-directed activities. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 317–330. doi:10.1177/0146167211427147
2. Anić, P., & Tončić, M. (2013). Orientations to happiness, subjective well-being and life goals. Psihologijske teme, 22, 135–153.
3. Aristotle. (2001). Nichomachean ethics. In R. McKeon (Ed.), The basic works of Aristotle (pp. 928–1112). New York, NY: Modern Library. (Original work published 350 B.C.E., Oxford translation 1912–1954)
4. Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Tonry, L. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13, 27–45. doi:10.1177/1073191105283504
5. Battista, J., & Almond, R. (1973). The development of meaning in life. Psychiatry, 36, 409–427.
6. Bauer, J. J., McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2008). Narrative identity and eudaimonic well-being. Journal of Happiness, 9, 81–104. doi:10.1007/s10902-006-9021-6
7. Bauer, J. J., McAdams, D. P., & Sakaeda, A. R. (2005). Interpreting the good life: Growth memories in the lives of mature, happy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 203–217. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.203
8. Beck, J. S. (2011). Cognitive behavior therapy: Basics and beyond (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
9. Berkowitz, M. W., & Bier, M. C. (2004). Research-based character education. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591, 72–85.
10. Bernard, M. E., Ellis, A., & Terjesen, M. (2006). Rational-emotive behavioral approaches to childhood disorders: History, theory, practice and research. New York, NY: Spring Science.
11. Bryant, F. B., & Veroff, J. (2007). Savoring: A new model of positive experience. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Buschor, C., Proyer, R. T., & Ruch, W. (2013). Self- and peer-rated character strengths: How do they relate to satisfaction with life and orientations to happiness? Journal of Positive Psychology, 8, 116–127. doi:10.1080/17439760.2012.758305
13. Campbell, J., & Moyers, B. D. (1988). The power of myth. New York, NY: Doubleday.
14. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2002). Optimism. In C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 231–243). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
15. Chan, D. W. (2009). Orientations to happiness and subjective well-being among Chinese prospective and in-service teachers in Hong Kong. Educational Psychology, 29, 139–151. doi:10.1080/01443410802570907
16. Chen, G. (2010). Validating the orientations to happiness scale in a Chinese sample of university students. Social Indicators Research, 99, 431–442. doi:10.1007/s11205-010-9590-y
17. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
18. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Massimini, F. (1985). On the psychological selection of bio-cultural information. New Ideas in Psychology, 3, 115–138.
19. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Nakamura, J. (2010). Effortless attention in everyday life: A systematic phenomenology. In B. Bruya (Ed.)., Effortless attention: A new perspective in the cognitive science of attention and action (pp. 179–189). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20. Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105–115.
21. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024–1037.
22. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
23. Delle Fave, A., Brdar, I., Freire, T., Vella-Brodrick, D., & Wissing, M. (2011). The eudaimonic and hedonic components of happiness: Qualitative and quantitative findings. Social Indicators Research, 100, 185–207. doi:10.1007/s11205-010-9632-5
24. Delle Fave A., & Massimini F. (1988). Modernization and the changing contexts of flow in work and leisure. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience. Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 193–213). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
25. Delle Fave, A., Massimini, F., & Bassi, M. (2011). Psychological selection and optimal experience across cultures: Social empowerment through personal growth. New York, NY: Springer.
26. Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.
27. Diener, E., Sapyta, J. J., & Suh, E. (1998). Subjective well-being is essential to well-being. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 33–37.
28. Diener, E. D., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13, 81–84.
29. Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1087–1101. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087
30. Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16, 939–944.
31. Duffy, R. D., & Sedlacek, W. E. (2007). The presence of and search for a calling: Connections to career development. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 70, 590–601. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.03.007
32. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.
33. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
34. Emmons, R. A., & Diener, E. D. (1985). Personality correlates of subjective well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 89–97.
35. Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 377–389. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.377
36. Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York, NY: Norton.
37. Fava, G. A., & Tomba, E. (2009). Increasing psychological well-being and resilience by psychotherapeutic methods. Journal of Personality, 77, 1903–1934. doi. 1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00604.x
38. Fordyce, M. W. (1983). A program to increase happiness: Further studies. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 30, 483–498.
39. Fowers, B. J., Mollica, C. O., & Procacci, E. N. (2010). Constitutive and instrumental goal orientations and their relations with eudaimonic and hedonic well-being. Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 139–153. doi:10.1080/17439761003630045
40. Frankl, V. E. (1997). Man's search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy. New York, NY: Beacon Press.
41. Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. The Royal Society, 359, 1367–1377. doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1512
42. Frisch, M. B. (in press). Evidence-based well-being/positive psychology assessment and intervention with quality of life therapy and coaching and the quality of life inventory (QOLI). Social Indicators Research. doi:10.1007/s11205-012-0140-7
43. Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E. A., & Asher, E. R. (2004). What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 228–245. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.228
44. Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2007). Prospection: Experiencing the future. Science, 317, 1351–1354.
45. Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493–503.
46. Grouzet, F. M. E., Kasser, T., Ahuvia, A., Dols, J. M. F., Kim, Y., Lau, S.,…Sheldon, K. M. (2005). The structure of goal contents across 15 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 800–816. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.5.800
47. Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006). Acceptance and commitment therapy: Model, processes and outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 1–25. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006 DOI:10.1016%2Fj.brat.2005.06.006
48. Hirschi, A. (2011). Effects of orientations to happiness on vocational identity achievement. Career Development Quarterly, 59, 367–378.
49. Huta, V. (2012). Linking peoples' pursuit of eudaimonia and hedonia with characteristics of their parents: Parenting styles, verbally endorsed values, and role modeling. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 47–61. doi:10.1007/s10902-011-9249-7
50. Huta, V. (2013a). Pursuing eudaimonia versus hedonia: Distinctions, similarities, and relationships. In A. Waterman (Ed.), The best within us: Positive psychology perspectives on eudaimonic functioning (pp. 139–158). Washington, DC: APA Books.
51. Huta, V. (2013b). Eudaimonia. In S. David, I. Boniwell, & A. C. Ayers (Eds.), Oxford handbook of happiness (pp. 201–213). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
52. Huta, V., Pearce, K., & Voloaca, M. (May, 2013). How your style of pursuing personal well-being relates to how you impact the world around you. Symposium presented at the Psychology Outside The Box Conference, Ottawa, Ontario.
53. Huta, V., Pelletier, L., Baxter, D., & Thompson, A. (2012). How eudaimonic and hedonic motives relate to the well-being of close others. Journal of Positive Psychology, 7, 399–404.
54. Huta, V., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Pursuing pleasure or virtue: The differential and overlapping well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 735–762. doi:10.1007/s10902-009-9171-4
55. Huta, V., & Waterman A. S. (2013). Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia: Developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. Journal of Happiness Studies. doi:10.1007/s10902-013-9485-0
56. Huta, V., & Zuroff, D. C. (2007). Examining mediators of the link between generativity and well-being. Journal of Adult Development, 14, 47–52. doi:10.1007/s10804-007-9030-7
57. Jones, A., & Crandall, R. (1986). Validation of a short index of self-actualization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 63–73.
58. Joseph, S., & Linley, P. A. (2004). Positive therapy: A positive psychological theory of therapeutic practice. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (1st ed., pp. 354–371). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
59. Kashdan, T. B., & Silvia, P. (2009). Curiosity and interest: The benefits of thriving on novelty and challenge. In S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 367–375). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
60. Kasser, T. (2011). Ecological challenges, materialistic values, and social change. In R. Biswas-Diener (Ed.), Positive psychology as social change (pp. 89–108). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9938-9_6
61. Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American dream: Correlates of financial success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 410–422.
62. Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Research, 43, 207–222.
63. King, L. (2001). The health benefits of writing about life goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 798–807.
64. Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral stages (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
65. Kumano, M. (2011). Orientations to happiness in Japanese people: Pleasure, meaning, and engagement. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 81, 619–624.
66. Loevinger, J. (1966). The meaning and measurement of ego development. American Psychologist, 21, 195–206.
67. Loevinger, J. (1979). Construct validity of the sentence completion test of ego development. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3, 281–311.
68. Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). The how of happiness: A scientific approach to getting the life you want. New York, NY: Penguin Press.
69. Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 137–155.
70. Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9, 111–131. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111
71. Maddux, J. E. (2009). Self-regulation. In S. Lopez (Ed.), The encyclopedia of positive psychology (pp. 874–880). Chichester, England: Blackwell.
72. Marcia, J. E. (1967). Ego identity status: Relationship to change in self-esteem, “general maladjustment,” and authoritarianism. Journal of Personality, 35, 118–133.
73. Martin, M. W. (2008). Paradoxes of happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 171–184.
74. Maslow, A. (1964). Religion, values and peak experiences. New York, NY: Viking.
75. Maslow, A. H. (1968). Towards a psychology of being (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
76. Mather, M., & Carstensen, L. L. (2003). Aging and attentional biases for emotional faces. Psychological Science, 14, 409–415.
77. Mauss, I. B., Tamir, M., Anderson, C. L., & Savino, N. (2011). Can seeking happiness make people unhappy? Paradoxical effects of valuing happiness. Emotion, 11, 807–815.
78. McAdams, D. P. (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. New York, NY: Morrow.
79. McAdams, D. P., & de St. Aubin, E. (1998). How and why we care for the next generation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
80. Norton, D. L. (1976). Personal destinies: A philosophy of ethical individualism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
81. Orlick, T. (1990). In pursuit of excellence: How to win in sport and life through mental training (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Leisure Press.
82. Otake, K., Shimai, S., Tanaka-Matsumi, J., Otsui, K., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). Happy people become happier through kindness: A counting kindnesses intervention. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 361–375.
83. Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2010). Does it matter where we live?: The urban psychology of character strengths. American Psychologist, 65, 535–547. doi:10.1037/a0019621
84. Park, N., Peterson, C., & Ruch, W. (2009). Orientations to happiness and life satisfaction in twenty-seven nations. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 273–279. doi:10.1080/17439760902933690
85. Pelletier, L. G., Baxter, D., & Huta, V. (2011). Personal autonomy and environmental sustainability. In V. I. Chirkov, R. M. Ryan, & K. M. Sheldon (Eds.), Human autonomy in cross-cultural context (pp. 257–277). Dorcrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9938-9_6
86. Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Orientations to happiness and life satisfaction: The full life versus the empty life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 25–41. doi:10.1007/s10902-004-1278-z
87. Peterson, C., Ruch, W., Beermann, U., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2007). Strengths of character, orientations to happiness and life satisfaction. Journal of Positive Psychology, 2, 149–156. doi:10.1080/17439760701228938
88. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
89. Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1984). The transtheoretical approach: Towards a systematic eclectic framework. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones Irwin.
90. Prochaska, J. O., & Velicer, W. F. (1997). The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. American Journal of Health Promotion, 12, 38–48.
91. Proyer, R. T., Annen, H., Eggimann, N., Schneider, A., & Ruch, W. (2012). Assessing the “good life” in a military context: How does life and work satisfaction relate to orientations to happiness and career-success among Swiss professional officers. Social Indicators Research, 106, 577–590. doi:10.1007/s11205-011-9823-8
92. Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist's view of psychotherapy. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
93. Rogers, C. R. (1964). Toward a modern approach to values: The valuing process in the mature person. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 160–167.
94. Ruch, W., Harzer, C., Proyer, R. T., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2010). Ways to happiness in German-speaking countries: The adaptation of the German version of the Orientations to Happiness Questionnaire in paper-pencil and internet samples. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26, 227–234. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000030
95. Ruch, W., Proyer, R. T., & Weber, M. (2010). Humor as a character strength among the elderly: Empirical findings on age-related changes and its contribution to satisfaction with life. Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 1, 13–18. doi:10.1007/s00391-009-0090-0
96. 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.
97. Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65, 529–565.
98. Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Living well: A self-determination theory perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 139–170. doi:10.1007/s10902-006-9023-4
99. 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, 1069–1081.
100. Schlegel, R. J., Hicks, J. A., King, L. A., & Arndt, J. (2011). Feeling like you know who you are: Perceived true self-knowledge and meaning in life. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 745–756. doi:10.1177/0146167211400424
101. Schooler, J. W., Ariely, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). The pursuit and assessment of happiness may be self-defeating. In J. Carrillo & I. Brocas (Eds.), Psychology and economics (pp. 41–70). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
102. Schueller, S. M., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2010). Pursuit of pleasure, engagement and meaning: Relationships to subjective and objective measures of well-being. Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 253–263. doi:10.1080/17439761003794130
103. Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550–562.
104. Seligman, M. E. P. (1998). Learned optimism. New York, NY: Pocket Books.
105. Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. New York, NY: Free Press.
106. Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. New York, NY: Free Press.
107. Seligman, M. E. P., Rashid, T., & Parks, A. C. (2006). Positive psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 61, 774–788.
108. Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410–421. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.410
109. Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need-satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 482–497.
110. Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms with positive psychology interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65, 467–487. doi:10.1002/jclp.20593
111. Snyder, C. R. (1995). Conceptualizing, measuring, and nurturing hope. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 355–360.
112. Staudinger, U. M. (2001). Life reflection: A social-cognitive analysis of life review. Review of General Psychology, 5, 148–160.
113. 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 Counseling Psychology, 53, 80–93.
114. Steger, M. F., Kashdan, T. B., & Oishi, S. (2007). Being good by doing good: Daily eudaimonic activity and well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 22–42. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.03.004
115. Steger, M. F., & Shin, J. Y. (2012). Happiness and meaning in a technological world. In P. Brey, A. Briggle, & E. Spence (Eds.), The good life in a technological age (pp. 92–108). New York, NY: Routledge.
116. Szymanska, K. (2008). The downward arrow technique. The Coaching Psychologist, 4, 85–86.
117. Tafarodi, R. W., Bonn, G., Liang, H., Takai, J., Moriizumi, S., Belhekar, V., & Padhye, A. (2012). What makes for a good life? A four-nation study. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 783–800. doi:10.1007/s10902-011-9290-6
118. Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007). The psychological structure of pride: A tale of two facets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 506–525. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.506
119. Vella-Brodrick, D. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2009). Three ways to be happy: Pleasure, engagement, and meaning-findings from Australian and US samples. Social Indicators Research, 90, 165–179. doi:10.1007/s11205-008-9251-6
120. Vittersø, J. (2004). Subjective well-being versus self-actualization: Using the flow-simplex to promote a conceptual clarification of subjective quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 65, 299–331.
121. Vittersø, J. (2013). Feelings, meanings, and optimal functioning: Some distinctions between hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. In A. S. Waterman (Ed.), The best within us: Positive psychology perspectives on eudaimonia (pp. 39–55). Washington, DC: APA Books.
122. Vittersø, J., Dyrdal, G. M., & Røysamb, E. (2005, June). Utilities and capabilities: A psychological account of the two concepts and their relations to the idea of a good life. Paper presented at the 2nd Workshop on Capabilities and Happiness, University of Milano, Bicocca, Italy.
123. Vittersø, J., Oelmann, H. I., & Wang, A. L. (2009). Life satisfaction is not a balanced estimator of the good life: Evidence from reaction time measures and self-reported emotions. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 1–17. doi:10.1007/s10902-007-9058-1
124. Vittersø, J., Overwien, P., & Martinsen, E. (2009). Pleasure and interest are differentially affected by replaying versus analyzing a happy life moment. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 14–20. doi:10.1080/17439760802060602
125. Vittersø, J., Søholt, Y., Hetland, A., Thoresen, I. A., & Røysamb, E. (2010). Was Hercules happy? Some answers from a functional model of human well-being. Social Indicators Research, 95, 1–18. doi:10.1007/s11205-009-9447-4
126. Warnock, M. (1970). Existentialism (Rev. ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
127. Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of perspective expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 678–691.
128. Waterman, A. S., & Schwartz, S. J. (2013). Eudaimonic identity theory. In A. Waterman (Ed.), The best within us: Positive psychology perspectives on eudaimonic functioning (pp. 99–118). Washington, DC: APA Books.
129. Waterman, A. S., Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., Ravert, R. D., Williams, M. K., Agocha, V. B.,…Donnellan, M. B. (2010). The Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Well-Being: Psychometric properties, demographic comparisons, and evidence of validity. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 41–61. doi:10.1080/1743976090343520
130. Wells, G. (2012). Superbodies: How the science behind world-class athletes can transform your body and health. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
131. Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward social comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 245–271.
132. Wong, P. T. P. (2010). Meaning therapy: An integrative and positive existential psychotherapy. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 40, 85–99.
133. Wong, P. T. P., & Fry, P. S. (Eds.). (2012). The human quest for meaning (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
134. Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The authentic personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the authenticity scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 385–399. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.385
135. Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C. R., Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Jobs, careers, and callings: People's relations to their work. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 21–33.