Construct · 4 names · 5 citations
Different names. Different fields. One construct. One map.
● jangle · one word, four well-beings Nearest construct by meaningsatisfactioncompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to well-being is satisfaction.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are the names and the models that coined them; dashed arcs are borrowings. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each name appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
A person's own evaluation of life, comprising a cognitive judgment of life satisfaction and an affective balance of frequent positive over infrequent negative affect. Diener's 1984 review fixed the construct as hedonic: it asks how good a life feels and how the person rates it, not whether the person functions well. Diener treated the three components, life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect, as separable rather than as one quantity, so a high satisfaction score can coexist with substantial negative affect. The referent is always the respondent's own report; nobody else's judgment of the life counts.[1]
Well-being as positive functioning rather than positive feeling. Ryff argued in 1989 that the field had settled on happiness and life satisfaction while neglecting what it means to function well, and proposed six dimensions: autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relations with others, purpose in life, and self-acceptance. The construct is eudaimonic, concerned with living in accordance with one's potential, and it is not reducible to the hedonic meaning: a person can report high life satisfaction yet score low on growth or purpose. Ryff operationalized the six dimensions in a self-report instrument built to be scored dimension by dimension.[2]
Well-being as the presence of mental health, not the absence of mental illness. Keyes recast mental health in 2002 as a continuum from languishing to flourishing, defined by emotional, psychological, and social well-being taken together; languishing, their joint absence, he showed to carry impairment comparable to depression. The model absorbs both the Diener and Ryff traditions as components rather than choosing between them, and adds social well-being. Seligman's later PERMA account (2011) likewise treats flourishing as multi-component, naming positive emotion, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accomplishment, but is a book-length framework rather than a single validated scale.[3][4]
The distinction that the psychological and economic literatures routinely run together: life evaluation, the reflective judgment a person makes about their life on a ladder, and emotional well-being, the affective quality of everyday experience. Kahneman and Deaton drew the two apart in 2010 and found, in a large survey, that higher income improved life evaluation without an evident ceiling but improved emotional well-being only up to roughly a threshold, beyond which more money bought no additional day-to-day feeling. Both quantities are called well-being and answer to different determinants, so a claim about income and well-being depends entirely on which measure is meant.[5]
Next
Combine items across the well-being scales to see whether the meanings separate empirically, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct