SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING AS A KEY INDICATOR OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTIONING OF THE PERSONALITY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/psy-visnyk/2023.2.1Keywords:
positive psychology, eudemonia, hedonism, subjective well-being, eudemonic well-beingAbstract
The article notes that with the emergence of a new scientific field called «Positive Psychology», there is a need for simple, reliable, universal effective indicators of positive psychological functioning of the personality. However, this need has not been resolved to this day, and discussions are only intensifying, with scientists lacking agreement on this fundamental issue. The article proposes to consider «subjective well-being» within the hedonic approach to the study of well-being as the most appropriate indicator of positive personality functioning among the variety of constructs of positive psychology. Among the arguments for this position are that subjective well-being is a good indicator of the general state of the individual; it is a relatively simple and unitary construct psychometrically; it is an unbiased indicator of the functioning of the individual, which generally does not depend on individual “psychosocial experience”; it can be used to distinguish eudemonic from non-eudemonic lifestyles and can be a criterion for comparing and evaluating eudemonic theories of well-being. The question of why, then, researchers often use additional indicators or concepts of well-being in their works in addition to or instead of subjective well-being is considered separately. Also in the context of this problem, it is noted that despite all the arguments, this does not mean that subjective wellbeing is the only «true» indicator of positive psychological functioning of the personality, or that it is the highest virtue or the true goal of all the aspirations of the individual. Subjective well-being is a convenient indicator that seems to be the result of «doing the right thing». It also does not mean that people should directly strive for subjective well-being; such an approach would mean confusing the symptom with the cause, would contradict Aristotle’s recommendation to strive for virtue rather than happiness, and most likely would not yield a positive result.
References
Арістотель. Нікомахова етика / пер. з давньогр. В. Ставнюк. Київ : Аквілон-Плюс, 2002. 480 с.
Боснюк В. Ф. Модель евдемонічної активності як пояснювальна концепція благополуччя особистості. Психологічні студії, 2023. № 3. (в друці)
Боснюк В. Ф. Суб’єктивне благополуччя як універсальний індикатор позитивного психологічного функціонування особистості. Всеукраїнська науково-практична конференція з нагоди 50-річчя від початку підготовки психологів у Харківському університеті : матеріали Всеукраїнської науково-практичної конференції, 08-09 грудня 2022 р. / за заг. ред. О. О. Наливайко, Н. П. Крейдун. Харків, 2022. С. 27–31.
Busseri M. A. Examining the structure of subjective well-being through meta-analysis of the associations among positive affect, negative affect, and life satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences. 2018. Vol. 122. P. 68–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.003
Crocker J., Canevello A. Consequences of self-image and compassionate goals. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 2012. Vol 45. P. 229–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-394286-9.00005-6
Danner D. D., Snowdon D. A., Friesen W. V. Positive emotions in early life and longevity: Findings from the nun study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001. Vol. 80, no. 5. P. 804–813. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.804
Diener E. Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin. 1984. Vol. 95, no. 3. P. 542–575. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
Diener E., Diener C. Governments testing well-being initiatives. APS Observer. 2017. http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/governments-testing-well-being-initiatives
Fredrickson B. L. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist. 2001. Vol. 56, no. 3. P. 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.56.3.218
Kashdan T. B., Biswas-Diener R., King L. A. Reconsidering happiness: the costs of distinguishing between hedonics and eudaimonia. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2008. Vol. 3, no. 4. P. 219–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760802303044
Kasser T. The high price of materialism. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press, 2003. 166 p.
King L. A. Are we there yet? What happened on the way to the demise of positive psychology. Designing positive psychology: Taking stock and moving forward / ed. by K. Sheldon, T. Kashdan, M. Steger. New York, 2011. P. 439–446. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195373585.003.0030
Lazarus R. S. Does the positive psychology movement have legs? Psychological Inquiry. 2003. Vol. 14, no. 2. P. 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1402_02
Linton M. J., Dieppe P., Medina-Lara A. Review of 99 self-report measures for assessing well-being in adults: exploring dimensions of well-being and developments over time. BMJ Open. 2016. Vol. 6, no. 7. P. e010641. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010641
Lyubomirsky S., King L., Diener E. The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin. 2005. Vol. 131, no. 6. P. 803–855. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803
Martela F., Sheldon K. M. Clarifying the concept of well-being: psychological need satisfaction as the common core connecting eudaimonic and subjective well-being. Review of General Psychology. 2019. Vol. 23, no. 4. P. 458–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268019880886
Martín-María N., Miret M., Caballero F. F., Rico-Uribe L. A., Steptoe A., Chatterji S., Ayuso-Mateos J. L. The impact of subjective well-being on mortality: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies in the general population. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2017. Vol. 79, no. 5. P. 565–575. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0000000000000444
Ryff C. D. Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics. 2014. Vol. 83, no. 1. P. 10–28. https://doi.org/10.1159/000353263
Sheldon K. M. Becoming oneself: The central role of self-concordant goal selection. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2014. Vol. 18, no. 4. P. 349–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314538549
Sheldon K. M. Putting eudaimonia in its place: On the predictor, not the outcome, side of the equation. Handbook of eudaimonic wellbeing / ed. by J. Vittersø. New York, 2016. P. 531–541. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42445-3_36
Sheldon K. M. Understanding the good life: Eudaimonic living involves well-doing, not well-being. The social psychology of living well / ed. by J. P. Forgas, R. F. Baumeister. New York, 2018. P. 116–136.
Sheldon K. M., Corcoran M., Prentice M. Pursuing eudaimonia versus pursuing well-being: The first goal succeeds in its aim, whereas the second does not. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2019. Vol. 20, no. 3. P. 919–933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-9980-4
van Zyl L. E., Rothmann S. Towards happiness interventions: construct clarification and intervention methodologies. Journal of Psychology in Africa. 2014. Vol. 24, no. 4. P. 327–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2014.980621
Vitterso J. Handbook of Eudaimonic Well-Being. Cham : Springer International Publishing, 2016. P. 569. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42445-3
