Well-being

Well-being is a complex and multi-dimensional phenomenon which considers two

general positions or perspectives, eudaimonic and hedonic (Deci & Ryan, 2001; Ryan et
al.,2008; Ryff, 1989). Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics (Rowe & Broadie, 2002; Ryan et
al., 2008) distinguished the difference between hedonia and eudaimonia in his writings
about happiness as,(a) experiencing pleasure (hedonia) and, (b) “engaging one’s
human capacities by actively pursuing virtues and excellences” as a way of living
(eudaimonia). This was done through simple life examples while acknowledging cultural
realities within the context of his writings (Ryan et al., 2008, p. 143). While the
differences in the two perspectives appear simple, the factors that are considered in
each are often interrelated and are carefully considered as an important component to
empirical research and design (Ryan et al., 2008). Hedonic and eudaimonic.

Early research on subjective well-being (SWB) was designed to “monitor social

change and improve social policy” (Keyes, Shmotkin, & Ryff, 2002, p. 1007) measuring
happiness and life satisfaction. The hedonic approach to defining happiness and
wellbeing supports the idea that SWB is related to subjective experiences of pleasure of
the mind or body, satisfaction or happy feelings (Deci & Ryan, 2001; Waterman, 1990).
Defining well-being or happiness in strictly hedonic terms was considered
acknowledging or measuring “the presence of positive affect and the absence of
negative affect” (Ryan & Deci, 2011, p. 47). This strict definition forced researchers to
consider a fuller or inclusive conception of well-being (or wellness) more closely aligned
with eudaimonism.

Eudaimonic well-being highlights human engagement within the highest human

capacity in pursuing “virtues and excellences” (Ryan et al., 2008, p. 143) which Deci
and Ryan (2008b) note must be intrinsically worthy. Waterman (1990), in keeping with
Aristotle’s tenet of eudaimonia defines it as “activity in accordance with one’s daimon”
(p. 42) or an ideal of excellence of being or “true self” (p. 42). To realize this potential is
self-realization (eudaimonism) (Ryan et al., 2008; Waterman, 1993) and is considered
by Waterman and Deci and Ryan (2001) as a component of optimal psychological
functioning and experiencing; this is the definition of well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2008b).
Deci and Ryan (2008a) also believe that full functioning in eudaimonia is concerned with
actualizing one’s human potential or living well on the way to realizing one’s “true self”
(p. 2).
Hedonic and eudaimonic well-being are not mutually exclusive. Throughout the
literature on happiness and well-being, it is clear that subjective components of the
hedonic tradition exist within the ethical objective of eudaimonism. Waterman suggests
(1993) that individuals may reflect upon their experiences by reporting their experiences
through subjective factors such as talent development or aptitude as positively
impacting their own perception of purposing and experiencing in life (eudaimonism)
(Deci & Ryan, 2008b; Waterman, 1990). While SWB is more aligned within the hedonic
position, and PWB is aligned with the eudaimonic position, SWB can also serve to
measure components of well-being within the eudaimonic perspective as recognized by
evolving research.
Distinctions between SWB and PWB have been theoretically and empirically
distilled in studies on well-being and happiness and continue to evolve inprofessional
journals and other scholarly literature. The expansion of the definition of happiness or
subjective well-being began to consider the role of human potential and became
significant to the research (Waterman, 1990). By definition and study, subjective well-
being (SWB) needed expansion to address areas more firmly rooted in eudaimonia and
toward psychological well-being (PWB). This research continues to inform theoretical
components addressing the convergent factors impacting wellbeing,which include the
role of context, developmental stages, behaviors, and motivation.Psychological well-
being began to merge the fields of positive psychology, human functioning, and
subjective well-being toward a better understanding of human fulfillment.
Psychological well-being (PWB).

Ryff and Singer’s (1996) research and theoreticalapplication to empirical studies

identified six key dimensions to well-being that served to address positive human
functioning as (a) self-acceptance, (b) positive relations with others, (c) autonomy, (d)
environmental mastery, (e) purpose in life, and (f) personal growth. The model
considers factors and meanings of what is considered human fulfillment (Ryff, 1989) as
studied and related to research by seminal theorists, shown in figure 1.3 (Ryff, 2014).
Figure 1.3 Ryff’s (1989) Six Key Dimensions to Psychological Well-being (Ryff, 2014)
Ryff’s model begins with self-acceptance as a key part of well-being addressing the
positive opinion a person has of himself or herself in a non-narcissistic manner. This
means considering the constructed self-regard that one has, both positive and negative.
Self-acceptance means that a fully individuated person can accept his or her own
failures and successes in an honest manner (Ryff & Singer, 1996). Positive
relationships with others emphasizes the importance to PWB of close relationships
(intimacy) as well as the guidance and care of others (generativity) (Bandura, 1997; Ryff
& Singer, 1996).

Autonomy refers to the ability of a personto pursue personal convictions and

beliefs and to evaluate himself or herself according topersonal standards or values (Ryff
& Singer, 1996). Environmental mastery speaks to a person’sneed to manage and
control the complex surroundings in order to move forward in life, and requires mental
and physical skill-sets or competencies (Bandura, 1997; Ryff & Singer, 1996).Personal
growth refers to the ability to recognize or realize one’s own potential and talent and
one’s ability to experience new challenges or tasks as one grows. Finally, purpose in life
refers to a person’s ability to determine and find meaning and direction in his or her own
experiences and to propose or project goals in life (Bandura, 1997; Ryff & Singer,
1996).Of the six dimensions of PWB, three are more closely aligned with eudaimonic
wellbeing including (a) autonomy, (b) environmental mastery, and (c) positive relations
to others (Ryff & Singer, 2006).
These dimensions also closely resemble the basic needs of autonomy,
competency and relatedness found in SDT. Ryff's model expands the meaning of well-
being beyond just happiness to include the ability to successfully manage experiences,
challenges and opportunities in a richer context. Psychological well-being began to
merge the fields of positive psychology, human functioning, and subjective well-being
toward a better understanding of human fulfillment. Ryff and Singer’s (1996) review of
theoretical literature follows the evolution of psychological wellbeing (PWB) including
the work of Maslow (1968), Rogers (1961), Jung (1953), Dell and Baynes (2001), Allport
(1969), Frankl (1988) and Jahoda (1958) which considered the concept of maturity as
emanating from developmental life-span perspectives supported by Erikson
(1980), Bühler (1935) and Neugarten (1973). Ryff (1989) also engaged in a more
thorough evaluation and interpretation of Aristotle’s writing which initially introduced
hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. The research further supported the ideal that
broader contexts should be included when considering PWB. In summary,psychological
growth and well-being are operationalized through active and vital engagement in an
individual’s social environment.
Students who choose to engage in ECAs within the social learning context of
high school are often in search of fulfilling innate needs and willingly aspire to be well,
emotionally and physically (Nota et al., 2010; Ryan & Deci, 2000b; positive outcomes
that can often lead to a healthier sense of self (Chirkov, 2009; Darling, 2005; Darling et
al., 2005; Deci & Ryan, 2008a). Students want to integrate into their surroundings,
explore learning opportunities and gain a “general mastery and management of
people’s physical and social environment” (Deci & Ryan,2000, p. 230) while continuing
to make choices about which ECAs to engage in routinely.

The provision of opportunities, the choice to engage, the behaviors and actions
taken towardengagement, combined with the positive feelings or outcomes derived from
these opportunities, are important considerations in determining if students might
achieve well-being through ECA participation.Shulruf, Tumen, et al., 2008; Ushioda,
2011). Students who engage in ECAs have also displayed positive outcomes that can
often lead to a healtAhier sense of self (Chirkov, 2009; Darling, 2005;Darling et al.,
2005; Deci & Ryan, 2008a). Students want to integrate into their surroundings, explore
learning opportunities and gaina “general mastery and management of people’s
physical and social environment” (Deci & Ryan,2000, p. 230) while continuing to make
choices about which ECAs to engage in routinely. Theprovision of opportunities, the
choice to engage, the behaviors and actions taken toward engagement, combined with
the positive feelings or outcomes derived from these opportunities,are important
considerations in determining if students might achieve well-being through ECA
participation.