2022huta Howdistinctareeudaimoniaandhedonia Itdependsonhowtheyaremeasured

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/357753216
How distinct are eudaimonia and hedonia? It depends on how they are
measured
Article in Journal of Well-Being Assessment · January 2022

DOI: 10.1007/s41543-021-00046-4
CITATIONS READS
2 460
1 author:
Veronika Huta
University of Ottawa
56 PUBLICATIONS 5,227 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Veronika Huta on 11 January 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Well-Being Assessment
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41543-021-00046-4
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
How distinct are eudaimonia and hedonia? It depends

on how they are measured
Veronika Huta1
Accepted: 7 October 2021

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022
Abstract
The degree of distinctness between eudaimonia and hedonia has often been studied by
comparing subjective well-being and psychological well-being. It is argued here that the
distinctness is best studied when both concepts are measured in parallel terms, e.g., both as
momentary feelings, both as trait-level motives, etc. We classified measures of eudaimonia
and hedonia into three categories identified by Huta and Waterman (2014) – orientations/
motives, behaviors, experiences/feelings – crossed with two hierarchical levels (Vallerand,
1997) – global/trait, situational/state. Within cells of this classification, degree of distinct-
ness between theoretically eudaimonic and theoretically hedonic variables was examined
using exploratory factor analytic methods and inter-correlations. Thirty-one measures of
eudaimonia and hedonia were studied, across seven global studies and three situational
studies, with each situational study addressing a different time span (the moment, one
day, one week). It was found that eudaimonia and hedonia were clearly distinct as global
or situational orientations/motives, global behaviors, and situational experiences for the
momentary time span. Eudaimonia and hedonia showed little or subtle distinctness when
measured as global experiences, or situational experiences for a one-week time span. When
forcing one-factor solutions of global or situational experiences, positive affect accounted
for the most variance in overall well-being; life satisfaction accounted for less variance, but
was still a good proxy for overall well-being experience.
Keyword Eudaimonia · Hedonia · Factor analysis · Correlation
In psychology research on well-being, the difference between hedonic and eudaimonic

concepts represents the major theoretical distinction (Huta & Waterman, 2014; Ryan &
Deci, 2001; Ryff & Singer, 1998). A detailed review of different researchers’ definitions of
eudaimonia and hedonia was conducted by Huta and Waterman (2014). According to these
authors, hedonia includes two main components: pleasure/enjoyment/fun and absence of
pain/discomfort. Eudaimonia is much more difficult to define succinctly, but Huta and
Waterman (2014) indicated that definitions of eudaimonia often include authenticity/
* Veronika Huta
vhuta@uottawa.ca
1
School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, 136 Jean‑Jacques Lussier, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5,
Canada
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
V. Huta
autonomy, excellence/virtue, growth/self-actualization, and meaning/contribution. Eudai-

monia therefore represents a wide umbrella, but generally speaking, it has to do with a
meaningful and actualized life, to be contrasted with the pleasant and pleasurable life of
hedonia. The hedonic-eudaimonic distinction has a long philosophical history, stretching
back at least two millennia (see Aristotle, 2001). Researchers have even proposed that the
distinction maps onto different brain systems, with eudaimonic processes mapping onto the
forebrain and hedonic processes mapping onto the midbrain and hindbrain (Steger & Shin,
2012).
On the other hand, doubts have been raised about whether there is any real difference
between eudaimonic and hedonic variables, and it has been argued that the distinction
represents a theoretical tradition rather than an empirical reality (Biswas-Diener et al.,
2008; Kashdan et al., 2008). Hedonia has most often been represented by subjective
well-being (SWB) – positive affect, life satisfaction, and low negative affect (Diener
et al., 1999); eudaimonia has most often been represented by psychological well-being
(PWB) – autonomy, purpose in life, personal growth, positive relationships with others,
environmental mastery, and self-acceptance (Ryff, 1989). In confirmatory factor anal-
yses and exploratory structural equation modeling with one latent variable represent-
ing or approximating SWB and a second latent variable representing PWB, researchers
have found that the two latent factors had very strong correlations (Disabato, Goodman,
Kashdan, Short, & Jarden, 2015; Joshanloo et al., 2016; Keyes et al., 2002).
The primary aim of this paper is to revisit the degree of distinctness between eudai-
monia and hedonia, but in a way that is organized in terms of the distinction between
what Huta and Waterman (2014) called definition categories as well as the distinction
between what Vallerand (1997) called hierarchical levels. Huta and Waterman (2014)
found that measures of eudaimonia and/or hedonia fell into four different definition
categories:
1. Orientations – priorities, motives, goals

2. Behaviors – actions, activities
3. Experiences – affects, cognitive-affective appraisals
4. Functioning – abilities, strengths, achievements, habits
Orientations are often chosen by the individual, and represent the underlying reasons
for personal actions. Behaviors are the specific activities a person actually engages in,
though two people can engage in the same activity for very different reasons. Experi-
ences are often outcomes, and are subjective feelings that can change from moment to
moment but can also be assessed at the trait level. Functioning tends to also be an out-
come, often after an extended period of cultivating orientations and engaging in behav-
iors, and it represents the trait-level character and other milestones that a person has
achieved.
Vallerand (1997) distinguished three different hierarchical levels at which a variable
such as a motive can be assessed:
1. Global – also called trait level, where a participant reports on their life as a whole
2. Contextual – also called domain-specific, where a participant reports on a specific area
of their life such as work or school
3. Situational – also called state level, where a participant reports on a relatively narrow
window in time, such as the immediate moment, a day, or a week
13
How distinct are eudaimonia and hedonia? It depends on how they…
Most previous studies on eudaimonia and hedonia have neglected to pay attention to
the definition category their measures belonged to – they have simply assigned the label
“hedonia/hedonic well-being” or “eudaimonia/eudaimonic well-being” to a given variable,
regardless of whether that variable was a feeling, a way of functioning, or something else.
Though past studies have been clear about which hierarchical level they were addressing,
the distinction between hierarchical levels is raised here because it plays a major role in
the magnitude and even the sign of the correlation between eudaimonic and hedonic con-
cepts. As noted by Huta and Waterman (2014), the correlation between “eudaimonia” and
“hedonia” has ranged anywhere from -0.3 to + 0.8, depending on the definition category
and hierarchical level the measures belong to. Making the distinction between definition
categories (and hierarchical levels) is important if the field is to move forward in a more
coherent manner.
Furthermore, it is argued here that when a researcher attempts to empirically test the
degree of distinctness between eudaimonia and hedonia, both concepts should be assessed
in parallel terms, that is, in terms of the same definition category and the same hierarchical
level. Many previous studies focusing on the distinction between eudaimonia and hedonia
have ignored the importance of assessing theoretically eudaimonic and hedonic variables
in parallel ways. The most common example of this is the comparison of SWB and PWB.
A number of exploratory factor analyses have shown that at least some of the variables
representing SWB and PWB do load onto separate factors (Gallagher et al., 2009; Keyes
et al., 2002; Lamers, Westerhof, Bohlmeijer, ten Klooster, & Keyes, 2011). However, the
dilemma is that SWB falls in the experiences category, whereas PWB largely falls in the
functioning category. Thus, it is impossible to determine whether separate factors were
obtained because there is in fact a difference between hedonia and eudaimonia, or merely
because there is a difference between experiences and functioning. In the present paper,
each time hedonia and eudaimonia are compared, they are measured in parallel terms.
Another argument underpinning this paper is that hedonia and especially eudaimonia
have been operationalized in a wide variety of ways, and there is a need for additional
exploratory tests of the actual relationships between theoretically hedonic and theoretically
eudaimonic variables. Thus, in the present paper, the analyses are intentionally explora-
tory – in confirmatory analysis, it is possible to have a variable that loads substantially on
a factor other than the one to which it is assigned and still arrive at adequate global fit indi-
ces. The analyses used in this paper include principal components analysis and exploratory
factor analysis, with orthogonal and oblique rotation, as well as zero-order correlations
between obliquely rotated factors and between item/questionnaire composites (where each
variable is standardized and the variables are then averaged), and also Cronbach’s alphas of
sets of items/questionnaires representing eudaimonia or hedonia.
The data presented here include reanalyses of studies published or in preparation by
the present author, and thus include a somewhat idiosyncratic set of variables; neverthe-
less, multiple replications with the same variables produce more reliable averages across
studies. The largest study presented is new and brings together 31 of the most common
self-report measures of eudaimonia and hedonia developed by different researchers, thus
providing a more comprehensive look at the degree of distinctness between hedonia and
eudaimonia. Thus, the measures studied empirically in this paper are not restricted to the
conceptual two-part description of hedonia or the four-part description of eudaimonia pro-
vided above – the descriptions were provided merely to give the reader a general feel for
the hedonic-eudaimonic distinction.
Philosophers and psychologists concerned with the subtleties of assessment might point
out that it is difficult to assess a concept such as hedonic or eudaimonic experience directly.
13
V. Huta
The assumption in this paper is that one can inquire about a series of variables believed
to be strongly associated with hedonia or eudaimonia in a given definition category, and
through factor analysis come closer to reaching the underlying latent construct.
It is also worth noting that the hedonic-eudaimonic distinction is founded on a norma-
tive debate about what it means to live a good life (Tiberius, 2013). However, this paper
does not go into that broader debate. Rather, the paper has a very specific mandate: to
empirically test whether there is a difference between hedonia and eudaimonia in the first
place.
It should be noted that the functioning category is excluded from this paper – only ori-
entations, behaviors, and experiences are analyzed. Much has been written about eudai-
monic functioning and it would be easy to collect a series of scales to represent this con-
cept – most notably, the six scales of Ryff’s (1989) Psychological Well-Being measure,
as well as the Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Well-Being (Waterman et al., 2010) and the
Short Index of Self-Actualization (Jones & Crandall, 1986). However, the well-being lit-
erature does not have an empirically supported theoretical model bringing together a set
of strengths that would make up healthy hedonic functioning, a model that would provide
guidance in selecting representative scales. As such, the distinction between eudaimonic
and hedonic functioning is reserved for future research.
The contextual level is also excluded from this paper – only the global level and the
situational level are analyzed and discussed. This was for the sake of simplicity, given that
this paper addresses a broad range of variables as it is. There are innumerable different life
domains, and even if only some major domains were addressed (e.g., work/school, leisure,
and relationships), each orientation and experience would have to be assessed multiple
times, once for each life domain.
1 Review of Past Studies Which Measured Eudaimonia and Hedonia

in Parallel Terms
To date, a few studies have examined the factor structure and inter-correlations of theo-
retically eudaimonic and hedonic orientations when both were measured in parallel terms;
little research of this kind has been conducted in the case of behaviors, experiences, or
functioning. When reporting on magnitudes of inter-correlations, values below 0.1 will be
referred to as very small, values between 0.1 and 0.3 will be referred to as small, values
between 0.3 and 0.5 will be referred to as moderate, and values of 0.5 or greater will be
referred to as large (Cohen, 1992).
Distinct factors when studying orientations In the case of global orientations, research-
ers have found that eudaimonic concepts formed a distinct factor from hedonic concepts
(Anić & Tončić, 2013; Asano et al., 2014; Asano, Tsukamoto, Tasuku, Igarashi, & Huta,
2018; Bujacz et al., 2014; Huta & Ryan, 2010; Peterson et al., 2005; Ruch et al., 2014). In
the case of situational orientations, researchers have similarly found distinct eudaimonic
and hedonic factors (Huta & Ryan, 2010).
Intercorrelations when studying orientations and behaviors In the case of global orien-
tations, the correlation between eudaimonia and hedonia has been small to moderate and
positive (Chen, 2010; Huta, 2012; Huta et al., 2012; Huta & Ryan, 2010; Kryza-Lacombe
et al., 2018; Ortner et al., 2018; Peterson et al., 2005; Ruch et al., 2014). In the case of
13
situational orientations, at a given moment, the correlation between eudaimonia and hedo-
nia was found to be either moderately negative (Huta & Ryan, 2010) or moderately positive
(Huynh et al., 2017). In the case of behaviors, when aggregating daily reports over three
(Study 1) or four weeks (Study 2), the correlation between a eudaimonic behavior checklist
and a hedonic behavior checklist was very small, but when participants were asked to retro-
spectively report on the previous four weeks (Study 2), the correlation was at the lower end
of the strong range (Steger et al., 2007).
In sum, for orientations, eudaimonia and hedonia have been found to be distinct. For
behaviors, the results are less clear, but there has been some evidence that eudaimonia and
hedonia are distinct.
2 Research Questions
The research questions addressed in this paper are listed below. The primary research ques-
tion was question 2, though research questions 1 and 3 were addressed to provide more
comprehensive information.
1. Distinctness Between the Three Definition Categories – Orientations, Behaviors, and

Experiences. When variables from all three definition categories are factor analyzed,
do orientations, behaviors, and experiences load onto separate factors?
2. Degree of Distinctness Between Theoretically Eudaimonic and Theoretically Hedonic
Concepts, and Degree of Internal Consistency:
2a.
Distinctness of Factors: Is there evidence of two factors in exploratory analyses
within a given definition category, are there variables that clearly have a primary
loading on only one factor, and can the factors easily be labeled as “eudaimonic”
and “hedonic”?
2b.
Inter-correlations: If there are two distinct factors in an obliquely rotated solution
within a given definition category, is the correlation between them sufficiently
low? Also, is the correlation sufficiently low between composites of the theoreti-
cally eudaimonic items and the theoretically hedonic items?
2c.
Internal Consistency of Eudaimonic Concepts: If eudaimonia items/question-
naires do load on a single factor within a given definition category, is this merely
because they are being contrasted with hedonia items/questionnaires (i.e.,
because everything non-hedonic gets grouped together), or do the eudaimonia
items/questionnaires also have good internal consistency on their own, indicating
that eudaimonia is a coherent concept? The internal consistency of theoretically
hedonic variables will also be reported, for the sake of completeness, but will
not be discussed in any detail.
Definitions of eudaimonia have been so diverse that worries have been raised
that the concept is too broad or that purportedly eudaimonic variables lack a
common conceptual core (Kashdan et al., 2008).
3. Best Proxies for a One-factor Solution: If and when the data indicate a one-factor solu-
tion including both theoretically eudaimonic and theoretically hedonic variables, which
variables have the largest loadings? It would be informative to know which variable to
choose as the best proxy for all other variables in a given definition category, in situations
13
V. Huta
when a researcher is unable to include multiple measures in a study. In the literature,

when a single measure of well-being experience is used, it is most often life satisfaction
– if life satisfaction is not the best proxy for well-being experience, it would be informa-
tive to know if it is nevertheless a good proxy.
3 Method
3.1 Studies Included
At the global level, seven data sets were analyzed. Six of these had been previously used
in publications or are being used for publications in preparation. One previous publication
(Huta & Ryan, 2010) already reported a small subset of the analyses presented here. The
seventh global level study is new and includes a larger number of variables than the previ-
ous studies.
At the situational level, three data sets were analyzed. Two of these have been previ-
ously used in a publication (Huta & Ryan, 2010), which reported a small subset of the
analyses presented here. The first of these studies focused on the narrowest possible time
span, asking participants to report on the immediate moment. The second study focused on
a somewhat broader time span, asking participants to report at bedtime to summarize their
day. The third study is new and focuses on an even broader time span, asking participants
to report once a week to summarize their week.
3.2 Classification of Variables
Each measure was classified into one of five cells, following the classifications made by
Huta and Waterman (2014): global orientation, situational orientation, global behavior,
global experience, or situational experience (situational behavior was omitted, as the base
rate of many of the behaviors at a given moment or even over a given day would be too low
for statistical analysis). A given measure was classified into the definition category that
appeared to represent the majority of the items, though some measures contained a blend
of more than one definition category. In addition, each measure was classified as theoreti-
cally representing either eudaimonia or hedonia, based on the most common theoretical
assumptions in previous literature.
3.3 Reanalyzed Studies
The reanalyzed studies were selected from the pool of all previous studies performed in our
lab based on the following criteria: 1) they used the eight well-being experiences routinely
assessed in our lab at the global or situational level (meaning experience, elevating experi-
ence, self-connectedness, vitality, positive affect, negative affect, life satisfaction, and care-
freeness); 2) they used the HEMA or the HEMA-R to assess global or situational orienta-
tions (Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives for Activities, Huta & Ryan, 2010, and Hedonic
and Eudaimonic Motives for Activities – Revised, Huta, 2016); and 3) they had a sample
size at least approaching what is needed for exploratory factor analysis (at the state level,
this number was based on the total number of observations nested within participants,
rather than the number of participants). Compared to some other measures in the literature,
13
the HEMA/HEMA-R is particularly well suited for a factor analysis of well-being orienta-
tions because it includes all three/four of the facets of eudaimonic orientation (authenticity,
excellence, growth, meaning) and both facets of hedonic orientation (pleasure, absence of
pain) as identified by Huta and Waterman (2014).
The seven global level studies included: the first two studies by Huta and Ryan (2010)
(N = 300, 321); the first study by Huta and Hawley (2010) (N = 241); the new study
(described below) (N = 1132); the study by Gosselin et al. (2020) (N = 575); and the two
studies by Braaten and Huta (2018) (N = 749, 578). The three situational studies included:
the last two studies by Huta and Ryan (2010) (total N = 4006, 1120); and the new study
(described below) (total N = 216). All reanalyzed studies were conducted on undergradu-
ates at North American universities, with the exception of the study by Gosselin and col-
leagues (2020) which was conducted on adults of all ages; this latter study did not produce
results very different from the rest, and thus will not be reported on separately.
Items assessing theoretically eudaimonic and hedonic orientations in the reanalyzed

studies Global and situational orientations were measured using the items of the HEMA
(the first four global studies listed above, and the three situational studies listed above) or
the HEMA-R (the last three global studies listed above). The HEMA (Huta & Ryan, 2010)
asks participants to report the degree to which they pursue their activities (typically, in this
moment, during this whole day, or during the past week) with several intentions, whether
or not they actually achieve their aim. Sample theoretically eudaimonic items are “Seeking
to pursue excellence or a personal ideal” and “Seeking to use the best in yourself”; sample
theoretically hedonic items are “Seeking enjoyment” and “Seeking to take it easy”. The
HEMA-R (Huta, 2016) includes an additional item – “Seeking to contribute to others or
the surrounding world” – to explicitly assess the concept of meaning. Items are rated from
1 (not at all) to 7 (very much).
Questionnaires assessing theoretically eudaimonic experiences in the reanalyzed stud‑

ies At the global and situational level, four theoretically eudaimonic experiences were
assessed: meaning experience, elevating experience, self-connectedness, and vitality. For
all well-being experiences, instructions either asked participants to indicate how they felt
“typically” in the case of the global level, or “in this moment”, “during this whole day”, or
“during the past week” in the case of one of the situational level assessments. The Mean-
ing Experience scale (Huta & Ryan, 2010) asks participants to report the degree to which
their activities and experiences feel meaningful to them; sample items are “meaningful”,
“valuable”, and “playing an important role in some broader picture”. Sample items on the
Elevating Experience scale (Huta & Ryan, 2010) are “in awe”, “morally elevated”, and
“connected with a greater whole”. Sample items on the Self-connectedness scale (Huta,
2012) are “I know who I am”, “I have a clear sense of my values”, and “I’m aware of what
matters to me”. Sample items on the Subjective Vitality scale (Ryan & Deci, 2001; Ryan &
Frederick, 1997) are “energized”, “alive and vital”, and “alert and awake”. The eudaimonic
experience items except for those assessing meaning were rated from 1 (not at all) to 7
(extremely); the items assessing meaning were rated from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much).
Questionnaires assessing theoretically hedonic experiences in the reanalyzed stud‑

ies At the global level, four theoretically hedonic experiences were assessed: positive
affect, negative affect, life satisfaction, and carefreeness; at the situational level, the same
concepts were assessed except for life satisfaction, as this was seen as a global evaluation
13
V. Huta
of a person’s life. Sample items on the Positive Affect scale (Diener & Emmons, 1984)
are “happy” and “joyful”. Sample items on the Negative Affect scale (Diener & Emmons,
1984) are “frustrated” and “depressed”. Sample items on the Satisfaction With Life Scale
(Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) are “In most ways, my life is close to my
ideal” and “The conditions of my life are excellent”. Sample items on the Carefreeness
scale (Huta & Ryan, 2010) are “lighthearted”, and “free of concerns”. The hedonic experi-
ence items other than those assessing life satisfaction were rated from 1 (not at all) to 7
(extremely); the life satisfaction items were rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree).
3.4 New Global Level Study
The aim of the new global level study was to extend beyond the variables routinely assessed
in our lab to include the majority of questionnaires used to assess eudaimonia and/or hedo-
nia in the psychology research literature. A measure was included if it used a self-report
methodology, had previously been developed or adopted with the express intention of
assessing either “eudaimonia” or “hedonia”, and was deemed to be classifiable as a meas-
ure of orientation, behavior, or experience – as noted earlier, measures of functioning were
excluded. Also excluded were measures that have been theoretically assumed to represent
concepts other than eudaimonia or hedonia – such as engagement/flow, relationships/relat-
edness, and accomplishment (Seligman, 2011) – even though they may ultimately prove to
belong to eudaimonia and/or hedonia. Satisfaction of the three psychological needs pos-
ited by self-determination theory – autonomy, competence, and relatedness – were also
excluded, as these are typically treated as precursors to well-being experiences rather than
well-being experiences in and of themselves (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Participants Participants were 1132 undergraduates at a Canadian university. Mean age

was 19.61 (SD = 2.96); 80% of participants were female; 57% were Caucasian/White, 15%
were Asian, 7% were Arabic/Middle-eastern, 5% were African-American/Black, 2% were
Hispanic/Latino, 2% were Aboriginal/Native, and 12% were of other or mixed ethnic back-
grounds; 25% were majoring in health sciences/nursing, 20% in biological sciences, 19%
in psychology, 16% in other social sciences, 13% in arts, 5% in other sciences or applied
sciences, and 2% in commerce/economics.
Procedure Participants completed the study as an online self-report survey. Different par-
ticipants received the questionnaires in different sequences. Participants could choose the
study from a variety of studies available online and received course credit for completing
the study. On the website listing all studies available for student participation, the follow-
ing was written as the description of the new global study in an effort to mentally prepare
participants and to maximize engagement with the study: “We’ve pulled together a wide
variety of questionnaires that measure personal goals and well-being, and that have so far
been used in isolation. In this study, we want to see how they all relate to each other….
please pace yourself and take the time to answer as accurately as possible. You’ll find that
some of the questionnaires are similar – please bear with us and answer each one. Thanks
so much for your help!”.
Questionnaires assessing theoretically eudaimonic orientations in the new global level

study Seven questionnaires were used to represent eudaimonic orientations. The 4-item
13
Eudaimonic Motives for Activities subscale of the HEMA (Huta & Ryan, 2010) was used,
as described above; Cronbach’s alpha in this study was 0.80. The 6-item Meaningful Life
subscale of the Orientations to Happiness measure (Peterson et al., 2005) was included,
with sample items “I have a responsibility to make the world better a better place” and
“What I do matters to society”; items are rated from 1 (very much unlike me) to 5 (very
much like me); alpha in this study was 0.81. The 12-item Personal Growth Composite (Vit-
tersø et al., 2009) was included, with sample items “I enjoy trying to solve complex prob-
lems” and “I enjoy hearing new ideas”; items are rated 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally
agree); alpha was 0.86. On the Self-Realization Values subscale of the PEAQ scale (Per-
sonally Expressive Activities Questionnaire, Waterman, 1993), participants are asked to list
five activities of importance to them, and for each they are asked the degree to which the
activity provides them with each of the following opportunities: “The opportunity for me
to develop my best potentials” and “The opportunity for me to make progress toward my
goals”; a mean is then obtained across the two items and across the five activities; items are
rated 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree); alpha across the ten items was 0.83.
The 12-item Autonomous Causality Orientation subscale of the General Causality Orienta-
tion scale (Deci & Ryan, 1985) was included, on which participants read several scenarios
they may encounter, and following each scenario, they indicate the degree to which they
would prioritize each of several considerations; for example, one vignette describes being
offered a new position within a company you already work for, and the autonomous item
reads “I wonder if the new work will be interesting”; items are rated from 1 (very unlikely)
to 7 (very likely); alpha was 0.74. To assess Intrinsic Goals (Sheldon & Kasser, 1995), par-
ticipants were asked to list their five most typical strivings, and then for each striving they
rated how much it helped them move towards three possible futures such as “Intimacy and
friendship: having many close and caring relationships with others” and “Societal contri-
bution: working to help make the world a better place”; items were rated from 1 (no help
at all) to 7 (very much help); a single score for a given participant was obtained by taking
the mean across items and across strivings; alpha was 0.75. To assess Constitutive Goals
(Fowers, Mollica, & Procacci, 2010), participants were asked to list five important personal
goals and the key action they undertake to reach each goal, and then for each key action
they rated 6 reasons why they would engage in that action such as “Doing this key action is
central to this goal” and “Doing this key action is what it means to attain this goal”; items
were rated from 1 (not true at all) to 6 (very true); a single score for a given participant was
obtained by taking the mean across items and across key actions; alpha was 0.71.
Questionnaires assessing theoretically hedonic orientations in the new global level

study Three questionnaires were used to represent hedonic orientations. The 5-item
Hedonic Motives for Activities subscale of the HEMA (Huta & Ryan, 2010) was used, as
described above; alpha in this study was 0.82. The 6-item Pleasurable Life subscale of the
Orientations to Happiness measure (Peterson et al., 2005) was included, with sample items
“In choosing what to do, I always take into account whether it will be pleasurable” and
“Life is too short to postpone the pleasures it can provide”; items are rated from 1 (very
much unlike me) to 5 (very much like me); alpha was 0.81. The 3-item Hedonic Aspira-
tions scale was also used (Grouzet et al., 2005), where participants rate the degree to which
they have certain goals for the future such as “I will have a great sex life” and “I will have
a lot of excitement in my life”; items were rated 1 (not at all) to 9 (extremely); alpha was
0.87.
13
V. Huta
Questionnaire assessing theoretically eudaimonic and hedonic behaviors in the new

global level study Only one questionnaire has been developed thus far to assess eudaimo-
nia and hedonia as specific sets of behaviors, and thus behaviors could only be analyzed
as items (and not as questionnaires). On the Daily Behaviors questionnaire (Steger, Kash-
dan, & Oishi, 2008), sample theoretically eudaimonic items from the 7-item checklist are
“Listened carefully to another’s point of view” and “Persevered at a valued goal even in
the face of obstacles”; sample theoretically hedonic items from the 12-item checklist are
“Drank enough to get ‘buzzed’ or drunk” and “Watched a movie that was pure entertain-
ment”. Alpha was 0.64 for eudaimonic behaviors, and 0.57 for hedonic behaviors (despite
the low alphas, both scales were used in analyses because they were the only scales avail-
able to assess eudaimonia and hedonia as behaviors).
Questionnaires assessing theoretically eudaimonic experiences in the new global level

study The new global study included all four of the theoretically eudaimonic experience
measures used in the reanalyzed studies – the 13-item Meaning Experience scale (Huta &
Ryan, 2010) (alpha 0.94), the 13-item Elevating Experience scale (Huta & Ryan, 2010)
(alpha 0.91), the 5-item Self-connectedness scale (Huta, 2012) (alpha 0.84), and the 6-item
Subjective Vitality scale (Ryan & Frederick, 1997) (alpha 0.93). In addition, the new
global study included four more theoretically eudaimonic experience measures. The 5-item
Meaning Presence scale (Steger et al., 2006) was used, with sample items “I understand
my life’s meaning” and “My life has a clear sense of purpose”; items were rated from 1
(absolutely untrue) to 7 (absolutely true); alpha was 0.91. The 3-item Meaning subscale
from the PERMA Profiler (Butler & Kern, 2015) was used, with sample items “My life is
valuable and worthwhile” and “My life is purposeful and meaningful”; items were rated
from 1 (never) to 7 (always); alpha was 0.88. On the Personal Expressiveness subscale of
the PEAQ scale (Waterman, 1993), participants listed five activities of importance to them,
and for each they were asked the degree to which it made them have 6 experiences, such
as “This activity gives me my strongest feelings that this is who I really am” and “I feel a
special fit or meshing when engaging in this activity”; items were rated from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree); alpha was 0.70. On the 4-item Interest scale (Vittersø &
Søholt, 2011), participants reported how much they typically had experiences like feeling
“engaged” and “immersed”; items were rated from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely); alpha was
0.89.
Questionnaires assessing theoretically hedonic experiences in the new global level

study The new global study included all four of the theoretically hedonic experience
measures used in the reanalyzed studies – the 4-item Positive Affect scale (Diener &
Emmons, 1984) (alpha 0.90), the 5-item Negative Affect scale (Diener & Emmons, 1984)
(alpha 0.86), the 5-item Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985) (alpha 0.89),
and the 6-item Carefreeness scale (Huta & Ryan, 2010) (alpha 0.80). In addition, the new
global study included seven more theoretically hedonic experience measures – five of them
positive and two of them negative. The 4-item Pleasure scale (Vittersø & Søholt, 2011)
had sample items “happy” and “contented”; alpha was 0.89. On the 3-item Positive Emo-
tions subscale from the PERMA Profiler (Butler & Kern, 2015), sample items were “I feel
positive” and “I feel content”; items were rated from 1 (never) to 7 (always); alpha was
0.86. On the 6-item Positive Experiences subscale of the SPANE (Scale of Positive and
Negative Experiences; Diener et al., 2009), participants rate their feelings over the pre-
vious four weeks (which was used as a proxy for the global level), such as “good” and
13
“pleasant”; items were rated from 1 (very rarely or never) to 5 (very often or always); alpha
was 0.88. On the Emotional Well-being scale (Keyes, 2002), participants rate six items to
indicate how often they felt things like “cheerful” and “in good spirits”, rated from 1 (none
of the time) to 5 (all of the time); in addition, they gave a rating from 1 (worst possible
life overall) to 10 (best possible life overall); the scores were then summed; alpha of the
seven items was 0.88. On the 5-item Positive Affect subscale of the Bradburn Affect Scale
(Bradburn, 1969), participants rated how much they felt things like “Particularly excited or
interested in something” and “Pleased about having accomplished something”; the items
were originally rated as yes/no, but in this study they were rated from 1 (rarely) to 7 (very
often); alpha was 0.78. On the 6-item Negative Experiences subscale of the SPANE (Scale
of Positive and Negative Experiences; Diener et al., 2009), participants rated their feelings
over the previous four weeks, such as “bad” and “unpleasant”; items were rated from 1
(very rarely or never) to 5 (very often or always); alpha was 0.83. On the 5-item Nega-
tive Affect subscale of the Bradburn Affect Scale (Bradburn, 1969), participants rated how
much they felt things like “Upset because somebody criticized you” and “Bored”; items
were rated from 1 (rarely) to 7 (very often); alpha was 0.63 (despite the low alpha, this
scale was retained in order to have a reasonable number of scales – three – to represent the
negative side of well-being experience).
4 New Situational Level Study
The new situation level study focused on a longer time span – one week – than the reana-
lyzed studies which focused on the moment and the day. Having this range of time spans
made it possible to examine how results changed as the time span increased and potentially
to estimate when situational results began to approach what is obtained at the global level.
Participants Participants were 34 undergraduates at a North American university. Of the

34 participants, 25 were female; 9 were in first year, 13 were in second year, 6 were in third
year, and 6 were in fourth year; 18 were majoring in psychology, 3 in other social sciences,
6 in sciences, 2 in applied sciences, 2 in arts, 3 were undecided; 24 were Caucasian, 6 were
Asian, and 4 were of other ethnic backgrounds; and mean age was 19.71 (SD = 1.35).
Procedure Participant attended an initial session where they were instructed on how to
complete the diary portion of the study, and when they completed demographic ques-
tions. During the diary part of the study, they logged onto a website once a week for seven
weeks, and completed an online 15-min self-report questionnaire about their motives and
experiences over the previous week. Because participants occasionally missed one of their
weekly reports, a total of 216 weekly reports (out of a maximum possible of 34 × 7 = 238)
were obtained. Participants received course credit upon completing the study.
Questionnaires completed weekly in the new situational level study Other than inquir-
ing about the previous week, the measures used were the same as in the reanalyzed studies:
the Eudaimonic Motives for Activities subscale of the HEMA (Huta & Ryan, 2010) (alpha
0.78), the Hedonic Motives for Activities subscale of the HEMA (alpha 0.89); Meaning
Experience (Huta & Ryan, 2010) (alpha 0.92), Elevating Experience (Huta & Ryan, 2010)
(alpha 0.90), Self-connectedness (Huta, 2012) (alpha 0.79), Subjective Vitality (Ryan &
Frederick, 1997) (alpha 0.94), Positive Affect (Diener & Emmons, 1984) (alpha 0.89),
13
V. Huta
Negative Affect (Diener & Emmons, 1984) (alpha 0.83), and Carefreeness (Huta & Ryan,
2010) (alpha 0.89).
4.1 Ethical statement
Every study was approved by the ethics review board of the university where the study
was conducted. In each study, people gave informed consent to participate after reading a
description of the study and before proceeding to complete the study – in the in-lab stud-
ies, the study description was provided in paper form and consent was given by signing it;
in the online studies, the study description was provided online and consent was given by
clicking “next” to proceed to the study.
The author has presently carried out the study of seven global level data sets, of which
six have been previously used in publications or are being used for publications in prepara-
tion, and three situational level data sets, of which two have been previously used in publi-
cations. The secondary analyses of the existing data aim to answer research questions that
are different from or more detailed than the original papers. Specifically, the following is
a summary of the small subset of analyses that have been previously reported: five of the
eight re-analyzed data sets reported Cronbach’s alphas (global or situational) of the items
of the HEMA/HEMA-R scale (except for the last study in Huta & Ryan, 2010, the first
study in Huta & Hawley, 2010, and the second study in Braaten & Huta, 2018); in addition,
Huta and Ryan (2010) reported principal components analyses with Varimax rotation of
the HEMA items in the paper’s first two studies at the global level and the second last study
at the situational level.
The author states that there is no conflict of interest.
4.2 Analyses
Analyses were performed using SPSS 25 (IBM Corp., 2017) and HLM 7 (Raudenbush,
Bryk, & Cogdon, 2011). To study factor structure, each data set was analyzed four differ-
ent ways: principal components analysis (PCA) with orthogonal rotation (Varimax), PCA
with oblique rotation (Direct Oblimin, Delta = 0, reporting the structure matrix), explora-
tory factor analysis (EFA) using unweighted least squares and with orthogonal rotation
(Varimax), and EFA using unweighted least squares and with oblique rotation (Direct
Oblimin, Delta = 0, reporting the structure matrix). The methods of PCA and EFA were
both included because they represent different philosophies about what aspects of an indi-
cator variable should be considered signal versus noise when obtaining a common factor
– PCA assumes that all of the variance in the indicator variable, including variance that the
indicator variable does not share with any others, is a relevant part of the common factor;
EFA assumes that only variance which an indicator variable shares with at least one other
indicator variable is signal, and that all variance unique to an indicator variable is noise.
Orthogonal and oblique rotation were both included because of each of their strengths:
the pattern of loadings in orthogonal rotation is more replicable when the variables do not
form very distinct clusters in multi-factorial space; oblique rotation allows the correlation
between the factors to be non-zero, and in this way is closer to reality when dealing with
concepts that are likely to be correlated. Unweighted least squares was used for the EFAs
because it is robust to violations of normality (though variables whose skew exceeded ± 1.5
were transformed using either square root or log to achieve approximate normality prior to
analysis). The structure matrix was reported for the oblique rotations because it shows the
13
full relationship between a given variable and a given factor, and thus parallels the output
of the orthogonal rotation (the only exception was an analysis using the new global level
study where all variables from all three definition categories were included – the pattern
matrix was reported in that case, because the structure matrix had many cross-loadings
that made it difficult to discern the differences between factors). The focus was not on the
difference between the four types of analyses (though cases where there was a substantial
difference are noted), but rather on the results which appear consistently across the analy-
ses. Also, in the cases where multiple data sets were reanalyzed, results are not reported
separately for each data set, but rather median values across the reanalyzed data sets are
reported.
In the results section, a factor loading is described as “substantial” if it is 0.4 or greater.
The factor loading of a given variable is described as “clean” if the following criteria are
met: its primary (i.e., largest) loading is on the factor it is theoretically intended to rep-
resent, its primary loading is 0.4 or greater, and all of its secondary (i.e., other) loadings
are at least 0.2 units lower than its largest loading – a somewhat arbitrary but previously
used criterion (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). If a variable has a secondary loading within
0.2 units of its primary loading and its primary loading is of magnitude 0.4 or greater, it is
referred to as “cross-loading” on the secondary factor.
To study the magnitudes of relationships between eudaimonic and hedonic concepts,
as reported in Tables 1 and S1, zero-order Pearson correlations are reported in different
ways: the correlation between obliquely rotated factors in PCA, the correlation between
obliquely rotated factors in EFA, and the correlation between composites of the variables
Table 1 Correlations Between Theoretically Eudaimonic and Hedonic Concepts, and Cronbach’s Alphas of
Theoretically Eudaimonic and Hedonic Composites in Reanalyzed Studies and New Studies
Correlations between Cronbach’s alphas
eudaimonia and
hedonia
Measurement of eudaimonic and hedonic concepts Composites EFA Eudaimonic Hedonic
oblique composite composite
factors
Global orientations (reanalysis of six studies) .36 .34 .82 .82

Global orientations (analysis of new study) .38 .47 .70 .53
Situational orientations for moment (reanalysis of study) -.28 -.32 .87 .94
Situational orientations for day (reanalysis of study) -.04 -.05 .80 .88
Situational orientations for week (analysis of new study) .14 .16 .78 .89
Global behaviors (analysis of new study) .34 .29 .64 .53
Global experiences (reanalysis of six studies) .63 .58 .78 .75
Global experiences (analysis of new study) .77 .72 .90 .91
Situational experiences for moment (reanalysis of study) .37 .36 .54 .78
Situational experiences for day (reanalysis of study) .51 .47 .86 .64
Situational experiences for week (analysis of new study) .79 .56 .84 .88
Composites = Composites of items/questionnaires that are standardized and then averaged; a given eudai-
monic or hedonic composite consists of all items/questionnaires theoretically assigned to that concept, even
if some items/questionnaires did not load as theoretically predicted in Principal Components Analysis or
Exploratory Factor Analysis. EFA Oblique Factors = Obliquely rotated factors in Exploratory Factor Analy-
sis. In rows where multiple studies were reanalyzed, median correlations/alphas are given
13
V. Huta
that represent each factor. In Table 1, the items/questionnaires used to create a given eudai-
monic or hedonic composite are all of the items/questionnaires listed in the corresponding
factor analysis table. Table S1 can be found in the electronic supplemental material; it is an
expanded version of Table 1 where the composites consist of various potentially informa-
tive subsets of the relevant items/questionnaires, and the footnotes specify exactly which
subset is being used in each case. Again, the focus is not on the difference between the
three types of correlations (though cases where there is a substantial difference are noted),
but rather on the results which appear consistently across the correlations. Also, in the
cases where multiple data sets are reanalyzed, results are not reported separately for each
data set, but rather median correlations across the reanalyzed data sets are reported.
Internal consistency of items or questionnaires assessing eudaimonic (or hedonic)
concepts is assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. This measure is used because it is the most
widely used measure of internal consistency, and because it appears to provide a reason-
ably accurate estimate with the data sets used – if anything, some of the Cronbach’s alphas
reported are slight underestimates of the true internal consistency and are thus conservative
values.1 When reporting internal consistencies, a Cronbach’s alpha is considered “good”
for use in future research if it is at least 0.8, “acceptable” if it is between 0.7 and 0.8, “ques-
tionable” and indicating a need for revision if it is between 0.6 and 0.7, and “poor” if it is
below 0.6 (Kline, 2000).
When using global level data, the analyses were performed as described above. When
using situational level data, the analyses represented the within-person level. Specifically,
to obtain the within-person correlation between eudaimonic and hedonic composites, the
multi-level modeling software HLM7 was used, with participants representing Level 2
groupings and eudaimonic and hedonic variables representing Level 1 data, with multiple
observations per participant (up to 49 time points for the momentary data, up to 10 for the
daily data, and up to 7 for the weekly data). Within-person principal components analy-
ses, exploratory factor analyses, and Cronbach’s alphas were obtained by first group mean
centering item/questionnaire scores (i.e., subtracting the within-person mean across time
points), and then proceeding as usual in SPSS (see Huang & Cornell, 2016; Thompson &
Bolger, 1989).
5 Results
In each factor analysis table, the horizontal dividing line separates theoretically eudaimonic
items/questionnaires and theoretically hedonic items/questionnaires. For simplicity of pres-
entation, the tables shown in this paper only display the results for EFA with oblique rota-
tion; the reader is referred to online supplemental tables for the results of all four analyses
– PCA with orthogonal rotation, PCA with oblique rotation, EFA with orthogonal rotation,
and EFA with oblique rotation.
5.1 Research Question 1: Distinctness Between the Three Definition Categories –

Orientations, Behaviors, and Experiences
To address Research Question 1, all of the variables from the new global level study were
analyzed using the four different factor analyses. The aim was to see whether there was
empirical support for differentiating between orientations, behaviors, and experiences,
13
before proceeding to focus on each definition category one at a time and testing the dis-
tinctness of eudaimonia and hedonia.
There were six eigenvalues greater than one (the first ten were 11.58, 2.55, 1.70, 1.39,
1.15, 1.03, 0.93, 0.86, 0.83, 0.75), though the scree plot asymptoted gradually and did
not have an obvious point at which it leveled off. A six-factor solution was extracted. See
Tables S2, S3, S4, and S5 for the PCA and EFA, orthogonally and obliquely rotated. See
also Table S6 for the inter-correlations of all the measures in the new global level study.
The most consistent patterns of variable groupings, showing up in at least three of the
four analyses (PCA and EFA, orthogonal and oblique rotation), were as follows: one factor
represented some but not all eudaimonic orientation variables, a second factor represented
hedonic orientations, a third factor represented both hedonic and eudaimonic behaviors
(likely reflecting common method variance), a fourth factor represented both eudaimonic
experiences and a subset of eudaimonic orientation variables, a fifth factor represented
hedonic experiences, and a sixth factor represented both self-realization values (orienta-
tion) and personal expressiveness (experience) (likely reflecting shared method variance,
since both variables are derived from Waterman’s, 1993, Personally Expressive Activities
Questionnaire, PEAQ).
Thus, though the solutions were not exactly as expected, they did give reasonable sup-
port for the distinction between orientations, behaviors, and experiences.
5.2 Research Question 2: Degree of Distinctness Between Theoretically Eudaimonic

and Theoretically Hedonic Concepts, and Internal Consistency of Eudaimonic
Concepts
Global orientations: reanalysis of multiple studies Across analyses and studies, two (and
sometimes three) eigenvalues exceeded a value of 1; the scree plot leveled off after two
(and sometimes three) eigenvalues (medians of first five eigenvalues were 4.21, 1.91, 0.87,
0.60, 0.54); and factor loadings showed clean separation between eudaimonic and hedonic
orientation items in two-factor solutions. See median loadings in Table 2 for obliquely
rotated EFA (and Table S7 for all four analyses – orthogonally rotated PCA, obliquely
rotated PCA, orthogonally rotated EFA, and obliquely rotated EFA). As shown in Table 1,
the correlation between theoretically eudaimonic and hedonic orientations was at the lower
end of the moderate range. Also as shown in Table 1, the items assessing theoretically
eudaimonic orientations showed good internal consistency.
Thus, for global orientations, theoretically eudaimonic and theoretically hedonic con-
cepts were clearly distinct. In addition, a eudaimonic orientation could be treated as an
internally coherent concept.
Global orientations: analysis of new study Across analyses, two eigenvalues exceeded a
value of 1; the scree plot leveled off after two eigenvalues (first five eigenvalues were 3.17,
1.27, 0.97, 0.82, 0.78); and in most cases, factor loadings showed clean separation between
eudaimonic and hedonic orientation questionnaires in a two-factor solution (though the
Hedonic Aspirations questionnaire had similar loading on both factors in obliquely rotated
EFA). See loadings in Table 3 (and loadings for all four analyses in Table S8). As shown
in Table 1 (and the more detailed Table S1), the correlation between theoretically eudai-
monic and hedonic orientations spanned the moderate range. Also as shown in Table 1
(and Table S1), the theoretically eudaimonic orientations showed reasonable internal con-
sistency, considering that separate questionnaires were being analyzed.
13
V. Huta
Table 2 Global Orientations: Factor Loadings of Items in Reanalyzed Studies and New Study
Item Factor labeled as Factor
eudaimonic labeled as
hedonic
Seeking to use the best in yourself 0.77 0.33

Seeking to pursue excellence or a personal ideal 0.74 0.28
Seeking to develop a skill, learn, or gain insight into something 0.69 0.23
Seeking to do what you believe in 0.68 0.28
Seeking to contribute to others or the surrounding world 0.60 0.20
Seeking enjoyment 0.44 0.79

Seeking fun 0.39 0.73
Seeking pleasure 0.40 0.73
Seeking to have things comfortable 0.31 0.67
Seeking to take it easy 0.08 0.63
Seeking relaxation 0.29 0.63
Factor loadings shown are for Exploratory Factor Analysis with oblique rotation. Loadings of 0.40 or
greater are in bold. Most entries are factor loading medians based on seven studies; for the item “Seeking to
contribute to others or the surrounding world”, medians are based on five studies; for the item “Seeking to
have things comfortable” medians are based on three studies
Table 3 Global Orientations: Factor Loadings of Questionnaires in New Study

Questionnaire Factor labeled as eudai- Factor
monic labeled as
hedonic
Eudaimonic Motives for Activities (Huta & Ryan, 2010) 0.68 0.40
Meaningful Life (Peterson et al., 2005) 0.59 0.26
Personal Growth Composite (Vittersø et al., 2009) 0.54 0.20
Self-Realization Values (Waterman, 1993) 0.52 0.16
Intrinsic Goals (Sheldon & Kasser, 1995) 0.49 0.29
Autonomous Causality Orientation (Deci & Ryan, 1985) 0.48 0.30
Constitutive Goals (Fowers et al., 2010) 0.41 0.22
Hedonic Motives for Activities (Huta & Ryan, 2010) 0.32 0.82
Pleasurable Life (Peterson et al., 2005) 0.31 0.58
Hedonic Aspirations (Grouzet et al., 2005) 0.35 0.40
greater are in bold. Factor loadings are from the new global study
Thus, the new study again showed that, for global orientations, theoretically eudaimonic
and theoretically hedonic concepts were clearly distinct. In addition, a eudaimonic orienta-
tion could be treated as a reasonably internally coherent concept.
Situational orientations: reanalysis of multiple studies and analysis of new

study Across analyses and studies, two eigenvalues exceeded a value of 1; the scree plot
leveled off after two eigenvalues (medians of first five eigenvalues were 3.64, 2.29, 0.76,
13
0.62, 0.48); and factor loadings showed clean separation between eudaimonic and hedonic
orientation items in two-factor solutions. See median loadings in Table 4 (and median
loadings for all four analyses, as well as loadings for each study separately, in Table S9).
The magnitude of correlation between theoretically eudaimonic and theoretically hedonic
items, however, changed from study to study, and appeared to be linked to the time span
represented. As shown in Table 1 (and Table S1), at a given moment, the correlation was
negative and at the lower end of the moderate range; when reporting on an entire day, the
correlation was close to zero; and when reporting on an entire week, the correlation was
weakly positive. Also as shown in Table 1, the items assessing theoretically eudaimonic
orientations showed good (or close to good) internal consistency for each of the time spans
studied.
Thus, for situational orientations, theoretically eudaimonic and theoretically hedonic
concepts were clearly distinct; also, the correlation shifted from negative to positive as the
time span represented increased from a moment to a week. In addition, a eudaimonic ori-
entation could be treated as an internally coherent concept.
Global behaviors: analysis of new study Six eigenvalues exceeded a value of 1; and the
scree plot leveled off after six eigenvalues (first ten eigenvalues were 2.94, 1.80, 1.55,
1.36, 1.20, 1.06, 0.99, 0.92, 0.86, 0.85). However, 6-, 5-, and 4-factor solutions were unin-
terpretable (e.g., “giving money to a person in need” and “writing out my goals for the
future” loaded on the same factor as “bought a piece of jewelry or electronics equipment
for myself” and “went on a long walk”). The three-factor solution was reasonably inter-
pretable, with the factors reflecting Eudaimonic, Hedonic Pleasure, and Hedonic Painless-
ness behaviors. The two-factor solution was reasonably interpretable, with all theoretically
eudaimonic items loading cleanly on one factor (though “wrote out my goals for the future”
sometimes loaded as low as 0.34); three of the theoretically hedonic items loading cleanly
on the second factor (“went to a big party”, “drank enough to get ‘buzzed’ or drunk”, “got
high on drugs”); and two additional theoretically hedonic items sometimes loading below
0.4 on the factor labeled as Hedonic but loading at least 0.16 units lower on the factor
Table 4 Situational Orientations: Factor Loadings in Reanalyzed Studies and New Study

Item Factor labeled as Factor labeled as
eudaimonic hedonic
Seeking to pursue excellence or a personal ideal 0.81 -0.09

Seeking to use the best in yourself 0.79 -0.06
Seeking to develop a skill, learn, or gain insight into something 0.72 0.03
Seeking to do what you believe in 0.63 -0.03
Seeking enjoyment 0.06 0.88

Seeking pleasure 0.05 0.86
Seeking fun 0.12 0.85
Seeking to take it easy -0.24 0.75
Seeking relaxation
greater are in bold. Entries are factor loading medians based on three studies, two of which are reanalyzed
and one of which is the new situational study
13
V. Huta
labeled as Eudaimonic (“had sex with someone I did not love”, “masturbated”). However,
the remaining theoretically hedonic items loaded below 0.4 on both factors. See loadings in
Table 5 (and loadings for all four analyses in Table S10). As shown in Table 1, the correla-
tion between theoretically eudaimonic and hedonic behaviors was in the small to moderate
range. Also as shown in Table 1, the items assessing theoretically eudaimonic behaviors
showed potentially promising internal consistency, considering that very specific behaviors
were being assessed.
Thus, for global behaviors, only about half of the items consistently had substantial and
clean loadings, but these items did somewhat support a distinction between eudaimonic
and hedonic behaviors. The modest correlations also supported a distinction. The modest
internal consistency of the eudaimonic behavior checklist is not surprising given the very
specific content of each item, but it does point to a need for a larger number of items if one
wishes to arrive at a reliable assessment of eudaimonic behavior.
Global experiences: reanalysis of multiple studies Across analyses, in four of the seven
studies, two eigenvalues exceeded a value of 1 and the scree plot leveled off after two
eigenvalues; in the remaining three studies, one eigenvalue exceeded a value of 1 and the
scree plot leveled off after one eigenvalue (medians of first five eigenvalues were 4.61,
1.03, 0.66, 0.48, 0.39). In two-factor solutions, three theoretically eudaimonic experiences
Table 5 Global Behaviors: Factor Loadings in New Study

Item Factor labeled Factor
as eudaimonic labeled as
hedonic
Listened carefully to another’s point of view 0.58 0.15

Persevered at a valued goal even in the face of obstacles 0.45 -0.04
Gave money to a person in need 0.45 0.12
Confided in another person about something very important to me 0.45 0.23
Volunteered my time 0.44 -0.01
Expressed my gratitude for something someone did for me either verbally or 0.42 0.17
in writing
Wrote out my goals for the future 0.34 0.01
Drank enough to get “buzzed” or drunk 0.06 0.74

Went to a big party 0.31 0.49
Got high on drugs 0.10 0.46
Had sex with someone I do not love 0.15 0.32
Attended a sporting event or concert 0.31 0.32
Masturbated 0.09 0.25
Watched a movie that was pure entertainment 0.31 0.22
Kept eating more than I intended of something just because it tasted so good 0.26 0.16
Went on a long walk 0.28 0.15
Spent time listening to music 0.20 0.15
Bought a new piece of jewelry or electronics equipment for myself 0.20 0.08
Relaxed by watching television or playing videogames 0.14 0.06
13
(meaning, elevation, self-connectedness) had clean factor loadings on the first factor
(though in one case meaning had a loading on the second factor within 0.19 units of its pri-
mary loading on the first factor), negative affect and life satisfaction had clean loadings on
the second factor (except in one case where life satisfaction cross-loaded on both factors),
and carefreeness had clean loadings on the second factor in the case of orthogonal rota-
tion but cross-loaded on both factors in the case of oblique rotation; vitality cross-loaded
on both factors; and positive affect cross-loaded on both factors (except in one case where
it loaded cleanly on the second factor). See median loadings in Table 6 (and median load-
ings for all four analyses in Table S11). (See also Table S12 and accompanying text for
results when excluding negative affect.) As shown in Table 1 (and Table S1), the correla-
tion between theoretically eudaimonic and hedonic experiences was in the large range.
Thus, for global experiences, theoretically eudaimonic and theoretically hedonic con-
cepts were only subtly distinct and could be combined into a single measure of well-being
experience. Eudaimonic experience on its own could be treated as an internally coherent
concept.
Global experiences: analysis of new study Three eigenvalues exceeded a value of 1,

and the scree plot leveled off after three eigenvalues (the first five eigenvalues were 9.95,
1.74, 1.02, 0.77, 0.71). In three-factor solutions, the factors were interpretable as repre-
senting eudaimonic variables, positive hedonic variables, and low negative hedonic vari-
ables. On the factor labeled as Eudaimonic, the theoretically eudaimonic variables which
had largely clean loadings were Presence of Meaning, PERMA Meaning, Meaning Experi-
ence, Self-connectedness, Elevating Experience, and Personal Expressiveness (except for
cross-loadings on the Positive Hedonic factor which occurred twice for Meaning Experi-
ence, once for Self-connectedness, twice for Elevating Experience, and once for Personal
Expressiveness). On the factor labeled as Positive Hedonic, the theoretically hedonic var-
iables which had mostly clean loadings were Carefreeness, Pleasure, Positive Affect by
Diener and Emmons (1984), PERMA Positive Emotions, SPANE Positive Emotion, and
Emotional Well-being (except for one case where PERMA Positive Emotions cross-loaded
on the factor labeled Low Negative Affect, one case where SPANE Positive Emotions
cross-loaded on the factor labeled Low Negative Affect, and one case where Emotional
Table 6 Global Experiences: Factor Loadings in Reanalyzed Studies

Questionnaire Factor labeled as eudai- Factor
monic labeled as
hedonic
Elevating Experience (Huta & Ryan, 2010) 0.88 0.49

Meaning Experience (Huta & Ryan, 2010) 0.74 0.55
Self-connectedness (Huta, 2012) 0.71 0.57
Subjective Vitality (Ryan & Frederick, 1997) 0.68 0.77
Positive Affect (Diener & Emmons, 1984) 0.66 0.84

Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985) 0.54 0.74
Carefreeness (Huta & Ryan, 2010) 0.52 0.66
Negative Affect (Diener & Emmons, 1984) -0.28 -0.66
greater are in bold. Entries are medians based on six studies
13
V. Huta
Well-being cross-loaded on the factor labeled Eudaimonic and one case where it cross-
loaded on the factor labeled Low Negative Affect). On the factor labeled Low Negative
Hedonic, the theoretically hedonic variables which had clean loadings were SPANE Nega-
tive Emotions, Negative Affect by Diener and Emmons (1984), and Negative Affect by
Bradburn (1969). The Satisfaction With Life Scale cross-loaded on all three factors (except
in one case where it loaded primarily on the factors labeled eudaimonic and positive
hedonic but less so on the factor labeled negative affect). Subjective Vitality, Interest, and
Positive Affect by Bradburn (1969) cross-loaded on the factors labeled Eudaimonic and
Positive Hedonic. See loadings in Table 7 (and loadings for all four analyses in Table S13).
(See also Table S14 and accompanying text for results when excluding negative affect.) As
shown in Table 1, the correlation between theoretically eudaimonic experiences and a com-
bination of positive hedonic experiences and low negative hedonic experiences was large
(and as shown in Table S1, the correlation between theoretically eudaimonic experiences
and positive hedonic experiences was also large).2
Thus, for global experiences, theoretically eudaimonic and hedonic concepts were only
subtly distinct and could be combined into a single measure of well-being experience. In
addition, eudaimonic experience could be treated as an internally coherent concept.
Situational experiences: reanalysis of multiple studies and analysis of new study The

number of factors diminished with increase in time span: for the momentary and daily
Table 7 Global Experiences: Factor Loadings in New Study

Questionnaire Factor labeled Factor labeled as Factor labeled
as eudaimonic positive hedonic as low negative
hedonic
PERMA Meaning (Butler & Kearn, 2015) 0.83 0.63 0.38

Presence of Meaning (Steger et al., 2006) 0.78 0.54 0.30
Meaning Experience (Huta & Ryan, 2010) 0.76 0.65 0.13
Self-connectedness (Huta, 2012) 0.76 0.63 0.22
Elevating Experience (Huta & Ryan, 2010) 0.73 0.67 0.00
Subjective Vitality (Ryan & Frederick, 1997) 0.70 0.80 0.34
Interest (Vittersø & Søholt, 2011) 0.70 0.76 0.20
Personal Expressiveness (Waterman, 1993) 0.42 0.34 -0.07
Pleasure (Vittersø & Søholt, 2011) 0.68 0.96 0.38

Positive Affect (Diener & Emmons, 1984) 0.65 0.95 0.36
PERMA Pos. Emot. (Butler & Kearn, 2015) 0.60 0.81 0.48
SPANE Positive Experience (Diener, 2009) 0.53 0.75 0.44
Carefreeness (Huta & Ryan, 2010) 0.46 0.70 0.29
Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985) 0.63 0.68 0.43
Emotional Well-being (Keyes, 2002) 0.47 0.59 0.37
Positive Affect (Bradburn, 1969) 0.61 0.69 0.21
Negative Affect (Diener & Emmons, 1984) -0.36 -0.53 -0.84

SPANE Negative Experience (Diener, 2009) -0.33 -0.51 -0.74
Negative Affect (Bradburn, 1969) -0.35 -0.42 -0.65
13
time spans, two eigenvalues exceeded a value of 1, and the scree plot leveled off after two
eigenvalues (for momentary time span, first five eigenvalues were 2.97, 1.25, 0.77, 0.69,
0.60; for daily time span, first five eigenvalues were 3.75, 1.31, 0.65, 0.48, 0.37); but for
the weekly time span, one eigenvalue exceeded a value of 1, and the scree plot leveled
off after one eigenvalue (first five eigenvalues were 4.65, 0.75, 0.51, 0.41, 0.28). In two-
factor solutions, the factors were fairly interpretable as representing eudaimonic variables
and hedonic variables. On the factor labeled as Eudaimonic, the theoretically eudaimonic
variables which had clean loadings were Meaning Experience, Elevating Experience, and
Self-connectedness. On the factor labeled as Hedonic, the theoretically hedonic variables
which had clean loadings were Positive Affect, Carefreeness, and Negative Affect. Subjec-
tive Vitality cross-loaded on both factors (except in one case where it loaded primarily on
the factor labeled Eudaimonic). See median loadings in Table 8 (and median loadings for
all four analyses, as well as loadings for each study separately, in Table S15). (See also
Table S16 and accompanying text for results when excluding negative affect.) The magni-
tude of correlation between theoretically eudaimonic and theoretically hedonic variables
increased with time span. As shown in Table 1 (and Table S1), the correlation was moder-
ate at the momentary level, moderate to large at the daily level, and large at the weekly
level.
Thus, for situational experiences, the degree of distinctness between theoretically eudai-
monic and theoretically hedonic concepts was very much a function of the time span being
captured by the situational assessment. At a given moment in time, Meaning Experience
(and possibly also Elevating Experience and Self-connectedness) was distinct from Posi-
tive Affect, Carefreeness, and Negative Affect. When reporting on one day, the theoreti-
cally eudaimonic and theoretically hedonic concepts were somewhat distinct. When report-
ing on an entire week, the results became quite similar to the results for global reports of
experiences – the distinction was only subtle and theoretically eudaimonic and hedonic
experiences could be combined into a single composite. In addition, at a given moment,
the low internal consistency of the theoretically eudaimonic experiences indicated that they
did not necessarily go hand in hand, such that a person may experience some of them but
not the others, suggesting that these experiences should be assessed separately rather than
combined into a composite; when assessing experiences across a day or a week, however,
theoretically eudaimonic experience could be treated as an internally coherent concept.
Table 8 Situational Experiences: Factor Loadings in Reanalyzed Studies and New Study

Questionnaire Factor labeled as Factor labeled as
eudaimonic hedonic
Elevating Experience (Huta & Ryan, 2010) 0.83 0.36

Self-connectedness (Huta, 2012) 0.75 0.44
Subjective Vitality (Ryan & Frederick, 1997) 0.67 0.51
Meaning Experience (Huta & Ryan, 2010) 0.63 0.22
Positive Affect (Diener & Emmons, 1984) 0.56 0.84

Carefreeness (Huta & Ryan, 2010) 0.52 0.72
Negative Affect (Diener & Emmons, 1984) -0.16 -0.60
Loadings of 0.40 or greater are in bold. Entries are median factor loadings based on three studies, two of
which were reanalyzed and the third was the new situational study
13
V. Huta
5.3 Research Question 3: Best Proxies for a One‑factor Solution
Since theoretically eudaimonic experiences and theoretically hedonic experiences were

highly correlated at the global level and also at the situational level when the time span
represented was one week, it suggested that a single measure of well-being could be
used in these situations as a proxy, albeit incomplete, for all of the well-being measures
combined.
Global experiences in one‑factor solutions: reanalysis of multiple studies One-factor

solutions were obtained in all seven studies – all median loadings are in Table S17. Positive
Affect and Subjective Vitality were consistently the two concepts with the highest load-
ings, and each represented about 70–75% of the variance in the single factor. The Satis-
faction With Life Scale, which represents the concept most often assessed by researchers
when only a single measure is used, represented about 50–55% of the variance in the single
factor.
Thus, for global experiences in general, either positive affect or vitality was an excellent
single proxy (at least when including the well-being experiences in these studies). Life sat-
isfaction was a good single proxy for global well-being experience.
Global experiences in one‑factor solution: analysis of new study One-factor solutions

were obtained in the new study – all loadings are in Table S18. Two measures of positive
affect had the highest loadings, accounting for a very high percentage of the variance in the
global well-being factor (about 80%), followed by Subjective Vitality which accounted for
a high percentage of the variance (about 70%). The Satisfaction With Life Scale accounted
for a fairly high percentage of the variance (about 55%).
Thus, for global experiences in general, positive affect was an excellent single proxy
(at least when measured by the Pleasure scale by Vittersø & Søholt, 2011, or the Positive
Affect scale by Diener and Emmons, 1984), followed by vitality. Life satisfaction was a
good proxy for global well-being experience.
Situational experiences in one‑factor solutions: analysis of new study At the situational

level, one-factor solutions were obtained in the study which represented a one-week time-
span, since here there had been a high correlation between theoretically eudaimonic and
hedonic experiences. Loadings are in Table S19. Positive Affect had the highest loadings,
representing about 85% of the variance in the single factor. This was followed by Subjec-
tive Vitality and Carefreeness, which accounted for about 70–75% of the variance.
Thus, for situational experiences at a one-week time span, positive affect was an excel-
lent single proxy (at least when including the well-being experiences in these studies).
6 Discussion
6.1 Distinctness Between Orientations, Behaviors, and Experiences
Factor analyses with all of the measures in the new global level study gave reasonable sup-
port for the distinction between orientations, behaviors, and experiences, as proposed by
Huta and Waterman (2014). This contributed support for proceeding to run analyses within
each of the three definition categories separately.
13
6.2 Degree of Distinctness Between Theoretically Eudaimonic and Theoretically

Hedonic Concepts
The most important conclusion of this paper is that the degree of distinctness between
eudaimonia and hedonia depends very much on how they are measured, in terms of a) the
definition category – orientations, behaviors, or experiences; and b) the hierarchical level
– global, or situational. It is recommended that, in future work, researchers specify the
nature of their measures, e.g., “global eudaimonic orientation”, “situational hedonic expe-
rience”, “contextual eudaimonic behavior”. It is also recommended that, when studying
the distinctness between eudaimonia and hedonia, they both be measured in parallel terms.
Eudaimonia and hedonia proved distinct in the following cases: as global or situational
orientations, global behaviors, and situational experiences at the momentary level (and the
daily level to some degree). Eudaimonia and hedonia showed little or subtle distinctness
in the following cases: global experiences, and situational experiences at the weekly level.
Thus, eudaimonia and hedonia are far from being synonymous when it comes to pri-
orities, motives, and values (i.e., orientations) and behaviors – they should be studied as
very different ways of living that a person can choose. However, on the outcome end (i.e.,
for experiences), the situation is more complex. At the global level, it would appear that
a person who has one kind of global happiness – say, a sense of meaning – tends to also
have various other kinds of global happiness – say, positive affect. Here, some readers
may conclude simply that “happy people are happy” and that a distinction between global
eudaimonic and hedonic experience is fruitless, while others may retain an interest in dis-
tinctions between different global experiences, even if the distinctions are subtle. It was
also informative to find that one week seems to be the time frame at which results begin
to approach what is found at the global level. At a given moment, however, it seems that
eudaimonic and hedonic experiences do not necessarily go hand in hand, indicating that
they warrant study as distinct concepts that may have different patterns of outcomes, pre-
dictors, and correlates.
There are several possible reasons why the correlation between theoretically eudaimonic
and hedonic experiences would be high. Waterman (1993) proposed that eudaimonic expe-
riences tend to produce hedonic experiences, while the reverse is not necessarily true; his
analyses with personal expressiveness and hedonic enjoyment supported this argument.
In other words, experiences such as personal expressiveness, meaning, and elevation also
feel good. Analysis with a variety of other well-being variables will be needed to con-
firm this argument more broadly, but it is quite compelling. Another possible explanation
for the high correlation in the experiences category may be that a eudaimonic orientation
or behavior may produce both theoretically eudaimonic and hedonic experiences (while
a hedonic orientation or behavior primarily produces hedonic experiences). That is, the
pathways to pleasant affect may be quite different – one person may experience the pleas-
ant affect of going to a party while another person may experience the pleasant affect of
performing an act of kindness – but the pathways lead to similar scores on a measure of
positive affect. Alternatively, it is possible that memory limitations and retrospective bias
may be inflating the correlation between theoretically eudaimonic and hedonic experiences
when a person is trying to summarize over a week or longer – the person may no longer
perceive big distinctions between two sets of positive feelings.
13
V. Huta
6.3 Best Proxies for a One‑factor Solution
Because of the high correlations between eudaimonic and hedonic experiences, at least
at the global and weekly level, it was informative to force one-factor solutions and
determine which variables tended to have the highest loadings on this one factor. The
strongest and most consistent proxy for a one-factor solution of global and situational
well-being experiences was positive affect, though vitality was equally strong in some
cases. This may be surprising, given that life satisfaction is the concept used most often
when a researcher includes only a single measure of well-being experience. Life satis-
faction did serve as a reasonable proxy of the single factor, but it accounted for substan-
tially less variance than did positive affect and vitality.
Thus, it would appear that positive affect is the best choice if a research has limited
space in their study and can only afford to include a single measure to approximate the
variety of well-being experiences that participants may have. On the other hand, life
satisfaction would be the appropriate choice when the researcher specifically wishes to
tap the content domain unique to life satisfaction, e.g., if the researcher believes that sat-
isfaction with one’s life is the final common outcome of all well-being processes.
6.4 Limitations and Future Directions
There were a number of omissions which made the paper less comprehensive than it
might have been. The paper did not include variables in the functioning category, most
notably, Ryff’s (1989) measure of Psychological Well-Being. This was a significant
omission, given that eudaimonia has been frequently operationalized using the Psycho-
logical Well-Being scales. To address this limitation, a separate set of studies is now
being conducted (Huta, 2021) which proposes a theoretical model of healthy hedonic
functioning and tests a series of hedonic functioning variables that can be compared
with eudaimonic functioning variables, including Ryff’s (1989) scales. Also excluded
from the present paper is situational data on behaviors, and assessments in any specific
life contexts. In addition, while every effort was made to collect a representative set of
measures in the new global study, it is likely that some measures used to operationalize
eudaimonia or hedonia were missed. Furthermore, the data sets analyzed were similar to
each other in the sense that most were based on undergraduate students at North Ameri-
can universities.
It is important to acknowledge a certain tension within the paper. On the one hand, there
is a lack of consensus regarding the definition of eudaimonia, yet on the other hand, meas-
ures needed to be selected to represent eudaimonia. To deal with this dilemma, the deci-
sion to include a given measure was based on the judgment of the researcher who used
the measure in their own work – the researcher’s measure was included in the new global
study if the researcher themselves explicitly considered it to be a measure of eudaimonia.
Thus, in some sense, this paper is a test of whether different eudaimonia researchers are
“onto something”, even though they may be addressing that “something” from somewhat
different angles. In this regard, it is reassuring that the alphas across different measures
intended to reflect eudaimonia were in excess of 0.70 (except for momentary situational
experiences).
A caveat is also in order. Scholarship on hedonia and eudaimonia is constantly evolv-
ing and incredibly rich theoretically. The findings presented here are relatively simple and
13
based on the imperfect measures collected for this paper. This highly empirical paper can-
not serve as a replacement for deeper and ongoing delving into these concepts.
In the future, it will be important to test whether the general patterns observed in this
paper will replicate, especially when different age groups and cultures are studied, and dif-
ferent sets of variables are examined. The findings presented here generalize primarily to a
North American undergraduate population, though it is reassuring that the one study which
used a community sample produced similar results to the other global level studies. Alter-
native analyses would also be informative – for example, bifactor exploratory structural
equation modelling could be used to examine the degree to which a given variable rep-
resents a global factor that encompasses both eudaimonia and hedonia, and the degree to
which it represents eudaimonia or hedonia uniquely. Further discussion is also encouraged
to generate alternative explanations of the findings presented here and by others.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.

org/10.1007/s41543-021-00046-4.
Endnotes
1
Cronbach’s alpha is based on a number of assumptions and is an underestimate of the true internal consist-
ency to the degree that each assumption (other than the last one) is violated: unidimensionality, i.e., that all
items form a single factor (which needs to be verified beforehand using PCA/EFA); continuous quantitative
items (though Likert scales with five to seven response options do not diminish Cronbach’s alpha much); nor-
mally distributed items (though Cronbach’s alpha is quite robust to non-normality as long as the true internal
consistency is high); Tau equivalence, i.e., that all items have the same factor loadings in a one-factor solution
(Cronbach’s alpha is an underestimate of true internal consistency by perhaps .05 units when some factor
loadings are twice as great as others); and uncorrelated errors, i.e., that no cause other than the concept being
measured (such as time pressure) causes the items to be correlated (violation of this assumption can make
Cronbach’s alpha an underestimate or an overestimate) (Gaderman, Guhn, & Zumbo, 2012; McNeish, 2018;
Raykov, 2001).
2
The correlation between theoretically eudaimonic and low negative affect experiences was small to mod-
erate (correlation was .40 between a composite of the six largely cleanly loading theoretically eudaimonic
experiences and a reverse scored composite of the three cleanly loading negative affect experiences; .15
between obliquely rotated factors in PCA, .21 between obliquely rotated factors in EFA). The correlation
between theoretically positive hedonic and low negative affect experiences was moderate to large (correla-
tion was .56 between a composite of the six largely cleanly loading theoretically positive hedonic experi-
ences and a reverse scored composite of the three cleanly loading negative affect experiences; .34 between
obliquely rotated factors in PCA, .37 between obliquely rotated factors in EFA).
References
Anić, P., & Tončić, M. (2013). Orientations to happiness, subjective well-being and life goals. Psihologijske
Teme, 22, 135–153.
Aristotle. (2001). Nichomachean ethics. In R. McKeon (ed.), The Basic Works of Aristotle (pp. 928–1112).
New York, NY: Modern Library.
Asano, R., Tsukamoto, S., Igarashi, T., & Huta, V. (2018). Psychometric properties of measures of hedonic
and eudaimonic orientations in Japan: The HEMA scale. Current Psychology, 37, 1–12.
Asano, R., Igarashi, T., & Tsukamoto, S. (2014). Hedonic and eudaimonic motives for activities(HEMA) in
Japan: The pursuit of well-being. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 85, 69–79.
Biswas-Diener, R., Kashdan, T., & King, L. (2008). Two traditions of happiness research, not two distinct
types of happiness. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 208–211.
Braaten, A., & Huta, V. (2018). Worldviews and how they relate to eudaimonic and hedonic motivation.
Manuscript in preparation.
Bradburn, N. M., & Noll, C. E. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Aldine.
13
V. Huta
Bujacz, A., Vittersø, J., Huta, V., & Kaczmarek, L. D. (2014). Measuring hedonia and eudaimonia as
motives for activities: Cross-national investigation through traditional and Bayesian structural equation
modeling. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 984.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155.
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.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of pro-
gress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276.
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2009). New meas-
ures of well-being: Flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 39,
247–266.
Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., Kashdan, T. B., Short, J. L., & Jarden, A. (2015). Different types of well-
being? A cross-cultural examination of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Psychological Assess-
ment, 1–12.
Gadermann, A. M., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2012). Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and
ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Practical Assessment,
Research, & Evaluation, 17.
Gallagher, M. W., Lopez, S. J., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). The hierarchical structure of well-being. Journal of
Personality, 77, 1025–1050.
Gosselin, C., Huta, V., & Braaten, A. (2020). How happy are parents compared to non-parents? Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Grouzet, F. M. E., Kasser, T., Ahuvia, A., Fernándes Dols, J. M., Kim, Y., Lau, S., Ryan, R. M., Saunders,
S., Schmuck, P., & Sheldon, K. M. (2005). The structure of goal contents across 15 cultures. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 800–816.
Huang, F. L., & Cornell, D. G. (2016). Using multilevel factor analysis with clustered data: Investigating
the factor structure of the Positive Values Scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34, 3–14.
Huta, V. (2012). Linking peoples’ pursuit of eudaimonia and hedonia with characteristics oftheir parents:
Parenting styles, verbally endorsed values, and role modeling. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13,
47–61.
Huta, V. (2016). Eudaimonic and hedonic orientations: Theoretical considerations and research findings. In
J. Vittersø (Ed.), Handbook of Eudaimonic Well-being. Springer.
Huta, V. (2021). Healthy hedonism: Proposing a model of what hedonically oriented people are good at.
Unpublished data.
Huta, V., & Hawley, L. (2010). Psychological strengths and cognitive vulnerabilities: Are they two ends of
the same continuum or do they have independent relationships with well-being and ill-being? Journal
of Happiness Studies, 11, 71–93.
Huta, V., Pelletier, L., Baxter, D., & Thompson, A. (2012). How eudaimonic and hedonicmotives relate to
the well-being of close others. Journal of Positive Psychology, 7, 399–404.
Huta, V., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Pursuing pleasure or virtue: The differential and overlappingwell-being
benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 735–762.
Huta, V., & Waterman, A. S. (2014). Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia: Developing a classifica-
tion and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 15, 1425–1456.
Huynh, A. C., Oakes, H., Shay, G. R., & McGregor, I. (2017). The wisdom in virtue: Pursuit of virtue pre-
dicts wise reasoning about personal conflicts. Psychological Science, 28, 1848–1856.
IBM Corp. Released 2017. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Jones, A., & Crandall, R. (1986). Validation of a short index of self-actualization. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 12, 63–73.
Joshanloo, M., Jose, P. E., & Kielpikowski, M. (2016). The value of exploratory structural equation mod-
eling in identifying factor overlap in the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF): A study
with a New Zealand sample. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18, 1–14.
Kashdan, T., Biswas-Diener, R., & King, L. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: The costs of distinguishing
between hedonics and eudaimonia. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3, 219–233.
Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 43, 207–222.
Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of
two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 1007–1022.
Kline, P. (2000). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). Routledge.
13
Kryza-Lacombe, M., Tanzini, E., & O’Neill, S. (2018). Hedonic and eudaimonic motives: Associations with
academic achievement and negative emotional states among urban college students. Journal of Happi-
ness Studies, 19, 1–19.
Lamers, S., Westerhof, G. J., Bohlmeijer, E. T., ten Klooster, P. M., & Keyes, C. L. (2011). Evaluating the
psychometric properties of the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF). Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 67, 99–110.
McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks Coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23, 412–433.
Ortner, C. N., Corno, D., Fung, T. Y., & Rapinda, K. (2018). The roles of hedonic and eudaimonic motives
in emotion regulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 209–212.
Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Orientations to happiness and lifesatisfaction: The full
life versus the empty life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 25–41.
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., & Congdon, R. (2011). HLM7 for Windows [computer software]. Scientific
Software International Inc.
Raykov, T. (2001). Estimation of congeneric scale reliability using covariance structure analysis with non-
linear constraints. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 54, 315–323.
Ruch, W., Martínez-Martí, M. L., Heintz, S., & Bouwers, S. A. (2014). Short Form of the Orientations to
Happiness Questionnaire for the German-speaking countries: Development and analysis of the psycho-
metric properties. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 73, 225–234.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research onhedonic and
eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.
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.
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (1998). The contours of positive human health. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 1–28.
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.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Atria
Paperback.
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.
Steger, M. F., & Shin, J. Y. (2012). Happiness and meaning in a technological age: A psychologi-
cal approach. In P. Brey, A. Briggle, & E. Spence (Eds.), The good life in a technological age (pp.
92–108). New York: Routledge
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Thompson, A., & Bolger, N. (1989). Emotional transmission in couples under stress. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 61, 38–48.
Tiberius, V. (2013). Recipes for a good life: Eudaimonism and the contribution of philosophy. In A. Water-
man (Ed.), The best within us: Positive psychology perspectives on eudaimonia (pp. 19–38). Washing-
ton, DC: American Psychological Association.
Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 271–360). Academic Press.
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.
Vittersø, J., & Søholt, Y. (2011). Life satisfaction goes with pleasure and personal growth goes with interest:
Further arguments for separating hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychol-
ogy, 6, 326–335.
Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia)
and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 678–691.
Waterman, A. S., Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., Ravert, R. D., Williams, M. K., Agocha, V. B., &
Brent, D. M. (2010). The questionnaire for eudaimonic well-being: Psychometric properties, demo-
graphic comparisons, and evidence of validity. Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 41–61.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
13
View publication stats

2022huta Howdistinctareeudaimoniaandhedonia Itdependsonhowtheyaremeasured

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2022huta Howdistinctareeudaimoniaandhedonia Itdependsonhowtheyaremeasured

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Article in Journal of Well-Being Assessment · January 2022

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

How distinct are eudaimonia and hedonia? It depends

Accepted: 7 October 2021

Keyword Eudaimonia · Hedonia · Factor analysis · Correlation

In psychology research on well-being, the difference between hedonic and eudaimonic

autonomy, excellence/virtue, growth/self-actualization, and meaning/contribution. Eudai-

1. Orientations – priorities, motives, goals

1 Review of Past Studies Which Measured Eudaimonia and Hedonia

1. Distinctness Between the Three Definition Categories – Orientations, Behaviors, and

when a researcher is unable to include multiple measures in a study. In the literature,

Items assessing theoretically eudaimonic and hedonic orientations in the reanalyzed

Questionnaires assessing theoretically eudaimonic experiences in the reanalyzed stud‑

Questionnaires assessing theoretically hedonic experiences in the reanalyzed stud‑

3.4 New Global Level Study

Participants Participants were 1132 undergraduates at a Canadian university. Mean age

Questionnaires assessing theoretically eudaimonic orientations in the new global level

Questionnaires assessing theoretically hedonic orientations in the new global level

Questionnaire assessing theoretically eudaimonic and hedonic behaviors in the new

Questionnaires assessing theoretically eudaimonic experiences in the new global level

Questionnaires assessing theoretically hedonic experiences in the new global level

4 New Situational Level Study

Participants Participants were 34 undergraduates at a North American university. Of the

Global orientations (reanalysis of six studies) .36 .34 .82 .82

5.1 Research Question 1: Distinctness Between the Three Definition Categories –

5.2 Research Question 2: Degree of Distinctness Between Theoretically Eudaimonic

Seeking to use the best in yourself 0.77 0.33

Seeking enjoyment 0.44 0.79

Table 3 Global Orientations: Factor Loadings of Questionnaires in New Study

Situational orientations: reanalysis of multiple studies and analysis of new

Table 4 Situational Orientations: Factor Loadings in Reanalyzed Studies and New Study

Seeking to pursue excellence or a personal ideal 0.81 -0.09

Seeking enjoyment 0.06 0.88

Table 5 Global Behaviors: Factor Loadings in New Study

Listened carefully to another’s point of view 0.58 0.15

Drank enough to get “buzzed” or drunk 0.06 0.74

Global experiences: analysis of new study Three eigenvalues exceeded a value of 1,

Table 6 Global Experiences: Factor Loadings in Reanalyzed Studies

Elevating Experience (Huta & Ryan, 2010) 0.88 0.49

Positive Affect (Diener & Emmons, 1984) 0.66 0.84

Situational experiences: reanalysis of multiple studies and analysis of new study The

Table 7 Global Experiences: Factor Loadings in New Study

PERMA Meaning (Butler & Kearn, 2015) 0.83 0.63 0.38

Pleasure (Vittersø & Søholt, 2011) 0.68 0.96 0.38

Negative Affect (Diener & Emmons, 1984) -0.36 -0.53 -0.84

Table 8 Situational Experiences: Factor Loadings in Reanalyzed Studies and New Study

Elevating Experience (Huta & Ryan, 2010) 0.83 0.36

Positive Affect (Diener & Emmons, 1984) 0.56 0.84

5.3 Research Question 3: Best Proxies for a One‑factor Solution

Since theoretically eudaimonic experiences and theoretically hedonic experiences were

Global experiences in one‑factor solutions: reanalysis of multiple studies One-factor

Global experiences in one‑factor solution: analysis of new study One-factor solutions

Situational experiences in one‑factor solutions: analysis of new study At the situational

6.1 Distinctness Between Orientations, Behaviors, and Experiences

6.2 Degree of Distinctness Between Theoretically Eudaimonic and Theoretically

6.3 Best Proxies for a One‑factor Solution

6.4 Limitations and Future Directions

Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://​doi.​

You might also like

1 Review of Past Studies Which Measured Eudaimonia and Hedonia

3.4 New Global Level Study

4 New Situational Level Study

5.1 Research Question 1: Distinctness Between the Three Definition Categories –

5.2 Research Question 2: Degree of Distinctness Between Theoretically Eudaimonic

Table 3 Global Orientations: Factor Loadings of Questionnaires in New Study

Table 4 Situational Orientations: Factor Loadings in Reanalyzed Studies and New Study

Table 5 Global Behaviors: Factor Loadings in New Study

Table 6 Global Experiences: Factor Loadings in Reanalyzed Studies

Table 7 Global Experiences: Factor Loadings in New Study

Table 8 Situational Experiences: Factor Loadings in Reanalyzed Studies and New Study

5.3 Research Question 3: Best Proxies for a One‑factor Solution

6.1 Distinctness Between Orientations, Behaviors, and Experiences

6.2 Degree of Distinctness Between Theoretically Eudaimonic and Theoretically

6.3 Best Proxies for a One‑factor Solution

6.4 Limitations and Future Directions

Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.