Wellbeing theories

Extant research underscores the influence of philosophy in inspiring the discipline of psychology thus; the above mentioned philosophical approaches have been further adapted to the psychology of wellbeing (Kahneman et al. 1999; Waterman 1993). Currently among researchers, there is greater agreement about hedonic wellbeing pathways versus those derived from the eudaimonic tradition (Kasdan et al. 2008). Thus, there has been an emergence of eudaimonic theoretical approaches which emphasise autonomy, self-realisation, mindfulness, authenticity, value congruence, and social connectedness (Huta and Ryan 2010; Ryan and Deci 2000). While noted that eudaimonia appears to be a more multifaceted concept, it is similar to hedonia in that it is considered at wellbeing and activity levels, where activities are seen as being intrinsically motivated and self-development as being a wellbeing pathway (Huta 2012). It was recognised in early wellbeing research that there was a general lack of theory- based formulations (Ryff and Keyes 1995). The underpinnings of wellbeing, however, are significant, as the different theoretical foundations guide current multidisciplinary knowledge and practice. The review of wellbeing literature reveals that theories can be conceptualised as falling along a range between those that are more aligned with either the hedonic or eudaimonic traditions. Additionally, there are recent models that build a body of knowledge supporting an integrated theory of wellbeing that considers both eudaimonic and hedonic wellbeing.

Hedonic theories

Researchers support the notion that hedonic psychology can be expressed in theoretical conceptions (Deci and Ryan 2001). Despite there being a critique that there are more facts required before building a theory, the theories listed within this section are built upon the assumption that there is much malleability within human nature (Tooby and Cosmides 1992). Based on their prevalence in the research and potential salience to this study, the following hedonic theories will be outlined: subjective wellbeing; the hedonic treadmill; adaptation; set-point; and homeostasis.

A significant feature of subjective wellbeing is that it may be defined from both hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives. The hedonic perspective suggests that wellbeing is derived from the maximisation of the pleasant effects of life and avoidance of unpleasant experiences and their related negative feelings (McMahan and Estes 2010). The eudaimonic perspective contends that humans cannot be truly well without engaging in self-development and making a contribution to the lives of others (Waterman 1993; Le Masuier et al. 2010). Thus, hedonic wellbeing focuses on happiness as a feeling and eudaimonic wellbeing emphasises reflective aspects of happiness, including fulfilment (Boniwell 2011).

The hedonic approach, focusing on wellbeing based on pleasures and happiness (Ryan and Deci 2001), is particularly influential to subjective wellbeing theory (Boniwell 2007). Research indicates that since the publication of Kahneman and colleagues’ (1999) ‘Well- being: the foundation of hedonic psychology’, SWB has been more linked with the hedonic approach to wellbeing (Deci and Ryan 2008).

Subjective wellbeing is distinguished as being subjective as it is for people themselves to evaluate the level that they experience wellbeing or wellness (Deci and Ryan 2008). An accepted definition of SWB is understood as experiencing a high level of positive affect, low level of negative affect and high degree of life satisfaction (Deci and Ryan 2008). Conversely, there are many researchers that accept Diener’s definition of subjective wellbeing, as simply judging life positively and feeling good (Veenhoven 2008). From this perspective, a person has high levels of subjective wellbeing if they experience greater joy and life satisfaction, rather than experiencing unpleasant emotions like sadness (Diener et al. 1997).

The caveat however, is that strictly speaking the hedonic definition of wellbeing would only consider positive and negative affect as a means to index happiness, in light of the fact that life satisfaction is not a hedonic concept (Deci and Ryan 2008). Accordingly, researchers also support the notion of the integration of SWB into the eudaimonic approach (Deci and Ryan 2008).

Typically, the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) is used to measure the cognitive dimension of subjective wellbeing (Diener et al. 1985); and the affective dimensions are most often measured with the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson et al. 1988), where a high level of wellbeing is indicated by high scores in life satisfaction and positive affect, in addition to a low score in negative affect (Kesebir and Diener 2008).

Research findings indicate that increases in SWB have positive effects, including, greater creativity, social contacts, work performance and physical health (Lyubomirsky et al.

2005). Additionally, SWB has been recognised as a means to broaden and build (Fredrickson 2004); where our perceptual horizon is broadened and greater resources are built or formed (Veenhoven 2008). Past research also indicates that SWB is reflective of the degree to which people’s goals or needs are obtained or met (Nieboer et al. 2005). Studies reveal that there is an increasing demand for information pertaining to social conditions that promote subjective wellbeing among decision-makers as ideological correlations are no longer a focus of interest. Subjective wellbeing is acknowledged as an individual level concept (Veenhoven 2008), yet is noted to affect the functioning of social systems like work organisation and friendships (Veenhoven 2008).

Hedonic treadmill theory

The treadmill theory of happiness (Brickman and Campbell 1971) is proposed to make a significant contribution to psychologists’ understanding of happiness. Diener and colleagues (2006) indicate that differing types of wellbeing change at various levels or even in different directions. Arguably, the most contentious aspect of the hedonic treadmill theory is the notion that people can only minimally alter long-term levels of happiness and life satisfaction (Brickman and Campbell 1971).

The theory is based on the work of Brickman and Campbell (1971) who indicate that people tend to return to a set point of happiness after major life events or traumas. Furthermore, it is proposed that a person’s emotional system will adjust to life circumstances and responses as they compare to their past experience. Myers (1992) advises that every desirable experience, or exhilaration of success, is merely transitory. From this perspective, both good and bad events only temporarily affect happiness, as people adapt and return to hedonic neutrality (Diener et al. 2006). One of the implications and subsequent critiques of this theory is that individual and societal efforts to increase happiness are ultimately destined to fail (Diener et al. 2009).

While there is empirical support for parts of the hedonic treadmill theory (Bonanno et al. 2004; Lucas et al. 2003), there is mounting empirical evidence indicating the range of variability in individuals’ reactions (Mancini et al. 2008). For example, Diener and colleagues (2006) suggest that the theory requires important modifications.

 individual set points are not neutral;

 humans have different set points which depend upon their temperament;  a single person may have multiple set points;

 wellbeing set points can change under some circumstances; and  adaptation to events, differs between individuals (Diener et al. 2006).

One of the significant contributions of the hedonic treadmill theory, arguably, is that it provides an explanation about how people with greater resources are often not any happier than those with few resources and people with severe problems are even quite happy (Diener et al. 2009; Frey and Stutzer 2002; 2001). Therefore, this research played a role in further understanding the concept of happiness. This research, also led to the development of the theoretical conception in the form of adaptation, dynamic equilibrium, set-point, and homeostasis theories of subjective wellbeing.

Adaptation/ Dynamic equilibrium/ Set-point/ Homestasis theory

The theories of adaptation, and dynamic equilibrium, set-point and homeostasis have all developed from a very similar set of assumptions, that individuals have differing yet, constant levels of subjective wellbeing based on their personality traits and genetics. These theories, their related contributions and critiques are further discussed in the context of their contributions to the theoretical development of wellbeing.

Adaptation Theory

The adaptation theory was developed by Brickman and Campbell (1971), which acknowledges that individuals largely return to a baseline level of wellbeing, later referred to as their set-point, after experiencing significant life events. There are many psychologists that support the theory of adaptation based on the increasing evidence (Diener et al. 2006). Past research indicates that external conditions in a person’s life are only weakly correlated to happiness (Diener et al. 1993; Campbell et al 1976). For example, research indicates that blind people did not have differing levels of happiness than their sighted counterparts (Feinman 1978). More recent studies indicate that a strong form of adaptation theory is unsustainable, it is moreover contended that adaptation may be a slow process and in some instances may never be complete (Diener et al. 2006).

The application of adaptation theory to practice would indicate that for an intervention to be effective it needs to be able to change a person’s baseline wellbeing. This can only be determined through longitudinal studies measuring whether the effects of the intervention were temporary. To practitioners, adaptation theories may provide insight into programme design that may have a greater chance of long-term success (Diener et al. 2006). Whilst some researchers have likened the act of trying to be happier to that of trying to be taller (Lykken and Tellegen 1996), more recent studies reveal that up to 40%

of an individual’s wellbeing can be determined by intentional activity (Lucas 2007). Another, recent finding is that there are long-term fluctuations in SWB, and adaptation are not always predictable (Diener et al. 2006).

Dynamic equilibrium theory

Heading and Wearing (1992) aiming to extend SWB theory, connect personality, life events and subjective wellbeing, in the dynamic theory of equilibrium. Their findings indicate that a person’s ‘equilibrium levels’ are a facet of ‘well’-being and ‘ill’-being and that personality and life events, could be viewed as being in dynamic equilibrium. In this vein, individuals would view equilibrium as a state that would be worth retaining (Herzlich 1973). The primary focus of their research interest focuses on how people cope with change and how levels of wellbeing are affected (Heading and Wearing 1992).

Set-point theory

Set-point theory was developed by Lykken and Tellegen (1996) and also focused on connections between constant characteristics, life events and subjective wellbeing. Contentious findings from their research led to conclusions that subjective wellbeing is mainly pre-determined and that there is little that can be done by either the individual or public policy to enhance it (Sheldon and Lyubomirsky 2004; Lykken 2000).

Set-point theory is held, by some researchers, to be the dominant theory within subjective wellbeing research (Kuhn 1962). The theory proposes that long-term subjective wellbeing in individuals remains constant, due to personality traits and genetic factors (Headey et al. 2008). Thus, the main claim of the theory is that while there may be short-term vacillations, subjective well-being does not tend to change in the long-term (Headey 2008). It is contended, that while life events may influence temporary vacillations in their wellbeing, reversion to their set-point will soon occur due to personality traits, particularly levels of neuroticism and extroversion. It is suggested, that until recently, the propositions that subjective wellbeing is not altered had not been tested (Headey et al. 2008).

There is recent empirical evidence that tend to contradict certain aspects of set-point theory as it was understood (Diener et al. 2006; Headey 2006; Easterlin 2005; Huppert 2005). Recent empirical studies confirm that while happiness levels do remain moderately stable over time, this does not discount the occurrence of large and lasting changes (Headey 2010; Lucas 2007).

Homeostasis theory

The most recent extension of this theoretical progression, can be traced back to Brickman and Campbell’s (1971) work, the homeostasis theory (Cummins 2010). From this view, the term equilibrium is now replaced by homeostasis and life events are now referred to as challenges. The focus within this theory is on the particular strength of a challenge and the impact on an individual’s level of subjective wellbeing (Cummins 1998). It is proposed that when a person reports a level of SWB that is outside of their set-point range, they have disconnected from their set-point mood-affect. This is further explained by the idea that when data was being collected, the individual was overcome by an emotional state that in turn overwhelmed their homeostasis levels (Cummins 2010). Arguably, a significant implication related to their findings is that external and internal human resources will aim to restore homeostasis yet, when the resources are insufficient, the perceived level of challenge will be lowered to a point whereby homeostasis can be restored (Cummins et al. 2014). In this situation it is advised that the return to the set-point will be determined by a person’s adaptive resources, which include money and interpersonal relationships, paired against the strength of the challenge (Tomyn et al. 2015).

This theory was further developed in the theories of adaptation (Brickman and Campbell 1976), dynamic equilibrium (Heading and Wearing 1992), set-point (Lykken and Tellegen 1996) and homeostasis (Cummins 2010). These subjective wellbeing theories explore the role of a person’s life events and external resources and their return to a genetic set- point of wellbeing. Hedonic theorists tend to be sceptical of the positive effects of interventions on a person’s long-term happiness or wellbeing. Conversely, eudaimonic theories, have often been developed as a reaction to purely subjective hedonic wellbeing theories, and will be evaluated as a potential means to contextualise a synergistic alliance between public health and tourism.

Eudaimonic theories

Eudaimonic theorising emerged originally as a challenge to subjective wellbeing with its focus on contentment, feeling good and life satisfaction (Bryant and Veroff 1982; Andrews and Withey 1976). Thus, eudaimonic wellbeing theory (EWB) denotes the quality of life a person derives from fulfilment of their goals to reach their greatest potential (Waterman 2008; Sheldon 2002). Eudaimonic wellbeing is proposed to have emerged to accompany and diverge from subjective wellbeing as a means of studying and understanding the quality of life (Kashdan et al. 2008; Ryan et al. 2008). Moreover, there are some researchers that use EWB synonymously with positive psychological functioning (Seligman 1999).

There are two main theories that are suggested to be associated with eudaimonic wellbeing - psychological wellbeing theory (Ryff and Singer 1998) and self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan 2000). Both of these theories are recognised as being primarily prescriptive as they specify mainly how wellbeing is to be attained (Deci and Ryan 2000).

Psychological wellbeing (PWB)

Psychological wellbeing (PWB) theory contends that eudaimonic wellbeing is attained through high levels of relatedness, autonomy, personal growth, self-acceptance, purpose in life, and environmental mastery (Ryff and Singer 1998). Ryff and Singer (1998) propose that the dimensions of psychological wellbeing result from a life well lived. Psychological wellbeing is differentiated from eudaimonia as it is argued to be more of a measure of eudaimonic living outcomes. Research indicates that PWB outcomes can yield outcomes akin to healthy psychological and physical functioning and the absence of psychopathy and disease (Ryan et al. 2006).

Based largely upon her reaction to the weighted focus on the affective pleasure component of SWB, Ryff (1989) developed the six dimensions of psychological wellbeing (Kjell 2011). Together these dimensions represent the Scales of Psychological Wellbeing (SPWB) (Ryff and Keyes 1995).

The questionnaire for eudaimonic wellbeing (QEWB) was developed based on the assertion that psychological wellbeing contain a more narrow definition of eudaimonia, namely a subjective state, which is the quest for virtue, excellence and self-realisation (Waterman 2008). The QEWB also involves six dimensions: self-discovery; perceived development of one’s best potentials; a sense of purpose and meaning in life, investment of significant effort in pursuit of excellence, intense involvement in activities, and enjoyment of activities as personally expressive (Waterman 2008).

Past research supported the notion that psychological wellbeing was greater in members higher in the social hierarchy however, recent findings indicate that there is significant resilience among those both within lower socioeconomic classes and who have encountered major life challenges (Markus et al. 2004; Ryff et al. 2004). Thus, challenging the Hellenic conception of eudaimonia only being able to be realised by the more privileged members of society (Ryff and Singer 2008).

Self-determination theory (SDT)

Self-determination theory (SDT) suggests that wellbeing is achieved through the satisfaction of psychological needs for relatedness, autonomy, and competence (Deci and Ryan 2000). Further, it is suggested that if these needs are satisfied, it will allow people to flourish, yet if they remain unsatisfied, wellbeing will be challenged (Deci and Ryan 2000). Self-determination theory posits that these three psychological needs are

imperative to psychological growth, integrity, wellbeing, experiences of vitality (Ryan and Frederick 1997), and self-congruence (Sheldon and Elliot 1999). Moreover, the theory underscores the importance of need fulfilment, as it is viewed as the aim of life that explains meaning, purpose and action (Deci and Ryan 2000).

There are fundamental points of departure from Ryff and Singer’s (1998) eudaimonic approach. While, Ryan and Deci agree that eudaimonia includes autonomy, competence and relatedness, they contend that the SDT approach addresses these principles as a means to foster eudaimonia whereas, Ryff and Singer’s approach seeks to define wellbeing (Ryan and Deci 2001). Similar to Rogers’ (1963) suggestion that emotional states reveal processes of valuation, SDT research uses measures of SWB to assess wellbeing (Ryan and Deci 2001). As such, measurement tools within self-determination theory, tend to vary depending on the contexts studied (Kjell 2011) and include: a focus on relationships (La Guardia et al. 2000) and a focus on the context of work (Deci et al. 2001).

Eudaimonic theories stress the significance of creating opportunities for people to engage in eudaimonic activity that will ultimately lead to enhanced levels of psychological wellbeing. Similarly, it is proposed that eudaimonic wellbeing is achieved through participation in activities which parallel participants’ personal values (Waterman 1993) or personality traits or strengths (Seligman 2002). Eudaimonic theories indicate that activities which satisfy psychological needs nurture sustainable wellbeing, while activities that satisfy the want for pleasure (hedonic behaviours) do not (Steger et al. 2008). Thus, these eudaimonic theories offer a starting point for decision-makers to identify eudaimonic activities and associated eudaimonic behaviours.

Integration theories

It is contended that a balance in conceptual approaches to wellbeing is necessary (Ryff and Singer 2008) further requiring an evaluation of the catalysts of individual flourishing, as well as the optimal functioning of social institutions (Ryff and Singer 2008). While there has been much research that has made the distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing (Gallagher et al 2009), contemporary research acknowledges that hedonic and eudaimonic approaches represent important elements of wellbeing (Henderson and Knight 2012; Kashdan et al. 2008). That said, recent studies have begun to examine potential means for integrating hedonic and eudaimonic components of wellbeing into a full model (Keyes 2007). To date, however, findings have been inconclusive, thus it is still uncertain as to whether current models can or should be integrated (Gallagher et al. 2009).

Presently, there are few studies that examine how models of eudaimonic and hedonic wellbeing can be integrated into the complete structure of wellbeing (Gallagher et al 2009). Past research contends that a framework that emphasizes the interdependencies within wellbeing research, may achieve an overall increase in wellbeing (Kjell 2011; Huta and Ryan 2010). Many psychologists now recognise the merits of both hedonic and eudaimonic approaches, which have led to an integrated wellbeing conceptualisation, often termed ‘flourishing’. Furthermore, researchers recommend that future research abandon dichotomous thinking in order to view the potential interrelationships between hedonia and eudaimonia. Thus, there is a recommendation that eudaimonia and hedonia ought to be considered mutually inclusive and that they function in a synergistic fashion (Henderson and Knight 2012). Whilst, there have been past empirical studies examining an integrated model of wellbeing (Keyes et al. 2008), they still only provide preliminary evidence supporting this multidimensional conceptualisation.

Wellbeing Theory

One of the first integration theories to be proposed is the Wellbeing Theory, which was formerly known as the Authentic Happiness Theory (Henderson and Knight 2012) in it, Seligman (2012) proposes the idea that wellbeing can be understood as an amalgam of