1. Carmel Proctor, Roger Tweed, Daniel Morris
The naturally emerging structure of well-being among young adults: “Big two” or other framework?
Carmel Proctor, Roger Tweed, Daniel Morris

2. Clarity among measures of well-being
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationships between common measures of well-being
Positive psychologists face a vast array of possible measures and constructs of well-being and the relationship between them can be confusing
Greater clarity is required of the relationships between variables operationalizing well-being
Philosophically and historically, two traditions seem to dominate: Hedonia and Eudaimonia
Hedonic well-being is commonly operationalized as SWB (life satisfaction (LS) + positive affect (PA) - negative affect (NA))(e.g., SWLS, PANAS)
Problematic – SWB includes pure measures of Hedonia, but only an impure measure of Eudaimonia
Eudaimonic well-being is commonly operationalized as a multidimensional assessment of personal actualization (e.g., PWB, BPNS, FS)
Problematic – no single theory that captures eudaimonic well-being
Those not relying on an explicit affective component tend to fall into the eudaimonic category

3. A “Big Two” model of well-being?
The predominance of these two traditions suggests that we might benefit from a “Big Two” model of well-being
This study explored the relationships between common measures of well- being to assess whether the naturally emerging relationships are best explained by a Big Two (Hedonia vs. Eudaimonia) or another, yet to be discovered, framework
Many common measures of well-being are not clearly Hedonic or Eudaimonic
Thus, an exploratory approach allowing the data to drive the nature of the framework and allowing for the possibility of a newly emerging structure of well-being is optimal

4. Study Hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: The results will support the philosophical distinction between hedonic well-being (e.g., positive emotion, and happiness) and eudaimonic well- being (e.g., meaning presence). In particular, the hedonic items are expected to load together early in the extraction process.
Hypothesis 2: Life satisfaction includes eudaimonic elements, so life satisfaction will show relationships to both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Suggesting that operationalizations of SWB from the hedonic perspective should include measures of hedonic well-being or subjective happiness, but not life satisfaction.
Hypothesis 3: The exploratory nature of the method of analyses will contribute additional information regarding well-being that was not anticipated by the other hypotheses.

5. Study Method: Measures:
Participants: 355 young adults aged (88 males, 267 females). The mean age of participants was years (SD = 1.11)
Measures:
SWLS: Satisfaction With Life Scale  FS: Flourishing Scale
SPANE: Scale of Positive and Negative Experience  MLQ: Meaning in Life Questionnaire
SHS: Subjective Happiness Scale  BPNS: Basic Psychological Needs Scale
Procedure: Online data collection
Data Analysis: Goldberg’s Bass-Ackward top down analytic factor technique was used to investigate the relationship between the variables
Orthogonal extraction and rotation processes were conducted for one component, two components, three components, and so on moving from abstract to more specific constructs at each level

6. Goldberg’s (Bass-Ackward) Component Analysis:
Uses a diagram showing relationships between variables in different extractions
Goldberg recommends orthogonal varimax rotation and extraction. He argues that the Bass-Ackward procedures:
Provides great benefit in clarifying relationships between latent variables and the amount of variance accounted for by each latent variable
Oblique (non orthogonal) rotations do not clarify the amount of independent variance accounted for by each latent variable
Factor scores predict important criteria and encourage the development of factor markers that are maximally unrelated to each other
Orthogonal rotations provide more consistency in the location of maximum loadings of items between extractions, and thus provide a clearer narrative of the nature of construct emergence

7. Results:
Linking lines in the diagram represent relationships between components from one extraction with those of an adjacent extraction (correlations of .35 or stronger)
A simple Big Two (Hedonia vs. Eudaimonia) framework did not emerge
Searching for Meaning is a distinct coherent latent construct
Item level analysis (level 5) demonstrates Life Satisfaction and Flourishing overlap with Hedonic (affect) and Eudaimonic (meaning presence) indicators
Flourishing items also associated with the Eudaimonic component BPNS-Relatedness
Life Satisfaction and Flourishing do not separate until level 7
No new meaningful components emerged with additional extractions
The width of each box represents the amount of variance accounted for by that construct

9. Discussion:
Despite historical traditions, well-being studies in positive psychology tend to assess not the Big Two (Hedonia and Eudaimonia), but instead the “Big Three” (PA, NA, LS)
Affect measures assess Hedonia, but LS measures indicate both or either Hedonia or Eudaimonia
Big Three is neither purely Hedonic, Eudaimonic, or a balanced combination of the two
Life Satisfaction and Flourishing loaded with Hedonic and Eudaimonic variables at several levels of the analysis
Although somewhat distinct, both could function as outcomes that reflect Hedonia and Eudaimonia – separated into their own components in the seven component solution
Searching for Meaning is distinct, but not necessarily an effective indicator of Eudaimonic well-being – associated with Negative Affect / absence of well-being
Presence of Meaning first pure eudaimonic measure to separate
Maximally distinct from Hedonia
Ideal indicator of Eudaimonia

10. Discussion:
Results suggest we may need both meaning presence and affect/happiness in order to experience satisfaction with life at high levels
Implications of the Bass-Ackward analysis is that researchers wanting to tap diverse indicators of eudaimonic well-being should add measures of presence of meaning for maximal distinctiveness from hedonic well-being
Life satisfaction may be seen as a superordinate category that reflects an outcome from both, or either, Hedonic or Eudaimonic well-being
May be more appropriate to use subjective measures of happiness (SHS) in assessing hedonic well-being rather than SWB, which is not specifically Hedonic or Eudaimonic
Distinction between Hedonia and Eudaimonia justified
Big Two alone fails to capture the diversity of well-being indicators

11. Thank you!

12. Reference:
Proctor, C., Tweed, R., & Morris, D. (2015). The naturally emerging structure of well-being among young adults: “Big Two” or other framework. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16(1),