What the heck is Happiness?!

It is crucial we define happiness. The literature mostly defines happiness as subjective well-being (SWB), psychological well-being (PWB) and/or positive affect (PA). (Diener, et al., 1999) Researchers are realizing that subjective and psychological well-being are more multidimensional than just happiness, so SWB is being defined as having the following components: joy, elation, contentment, ecstasy, pride, happiness and affection. (Diener, et al. 1999) Or it is said to have the three main characteristics: “life satisfaction, the presence of positive mood, and the absence of negative mood, together often summarized as happiness.” (Ryan & Deci, 2001 p. 144)“The characteristics related to positive affect include confidence, optimism, and self-efficacy; likability and positive construal of others; sociability, activity, and energy; prosocial behavior, immunity and physical well being; effective coping with challenge and stress; originality and flexibility.” (Lyubomirsky, King & Diener, 2005, p. 804) In brief, happiness can be understood as a frequent experience of positive emotions. (Lyubromirsky, et al., 2005)

Beyond defining happiness, it is also crucial to understand the different types of happiness: hedonic, eudaimonic, and chaironic. The following definitions of hedonic and eudaimonic happiness are by Maltby, Day and Barber (2005) yet are influenced by the work of Keyes, et., (2002), Ryan & Deci (2001) and Waterman (1993).

“Hedonic well-being (happiness), is the relatively shorter term evaluation of present day subjective well bring (happiness) as a balance within positive and negative affect, pleasure attainment and pain avoidance and eudaimonic well being is the longer term psychological well-being resulting from the engagement with individual development and existential challenges within life, meaning, and self- reflection.” (p. 3)

In a review of hedonic and eudaimonic happiness, Ryan and Deci (2001) point out that hedonic happiness originated in the 4^th century BC, a Greek philosopher, Aristippus, “ . . . taught that the goal of life is to experience the maximum amount of pleasure, and that happiness is the totality of one’s hedonic moments.” (p. 143) Ryan and Deci (2001) point out Kubovy (1999) articulation that “. . . psychologists who have adopted the hedonic view have tended to focus on a broad conception of hedonism that includes the preferences and pleasures of the mind as well as the body.” (p. 144) Deiner et al (1998) broadened hedonic happiness by introducing the attainment of goals or valued outcomes in different realms. For instance, if we get a bouquet of flowers, from a secret admirer we have a pleasurable sensation for a few moments. This type of happiness if fleeting and is derived from external sources. There is no concept of spirituality in hedonic happiness.

Eudaimonic happiness is the focus of this study. Many philosophers, religious leaders, and visionaries of the East and West, have “denigrated happiness per se as a principal criterion of well-being.” (Ryan & Deci, 2001) Ryan and Deci (2001) point out that Aristotle even considered “hedonic happiness to be a vulgar ideal, making human slavish followers of desires. He posited, instead, that true happiness is found in the expression of virtue- that is, in doing what is worth doing.” (p. 145)

Eu- daimon- ic. The etymology of eu in Latin or Greek means, good or well and the daimon or spirit is a key component of Aristotelian thinking, and is consequently valued in the PP field. The ic of the word means “having the nature of”. In other words, eudaimonic means to have the nature of a good spirit. Ryan and Deci, (2001) cite “Waterman (1993) stated that, whereas happiness is hedonically defined, the eudaimonic conception of well-being calls upon people to live in accordance with their daimon, or true self. Psychological Well- Being comes into play with eudaimonic happiness. PWB is made up of six constructs autonomy, personal growth, self-acceptance, life purpose, mastery, and positive relatedness. (Ryff & Singer, 1998) Ryff and Singer (1998) empirically demonstrated all six are connected with eudaimonic living and have a positive effect on physiological systems related to immunological functioning and promotes health.

There have been some key factors associated with eudaemonic happiness: character strengths, meaningfulness, and authenticity. Seligman (2002) has connected eudaimonic happiness with what he calls the “good life” which is achieved when you “… use your signature strengths to obtain abundant gratification, in the main realms of one’s life.” (p. 262) Seligman (2002) also indicates authenticity as an essential component of eudaimonic happiness. Authenticity will be discussed in greater length in a forthcoming part of the literature review. Yet, here it is to say that in order for one to achieve a feeling of eudaimonic happiness, one must be able to be true to one’s own character and fundamental nature of virtues. (Linley & Joseph, 2004)

In 1998 there came the clashing of the differing types of happiness, Ryan and Deci (2001) bring to light that Ryff and Singer (1998) challenged “. . . SWB (hedonic happiness) models of well being as being of limed scope where positive functioning concerned, and specifically that SWB is often a fallible indictor of healthy living. In turn, Diener et al (1998) retorted that Ryff and Siner’s eudaimonic criteria lets experts define well-bring, whereas SWB research allows people t researcher what makes their life good.” (p. 146) Ryan & Deci (2001) bring in the well-being work of Rogers (1963) in which his stance of being a fully functioning human being is more than attaining desires.