The Trouble with Well-Being: Why Defining ‘The Good Life’ Isn’t Simple
Conceptualisations, History, and Contemporary Debates in the Psychology of Well-Being & Science of Happiness
By Samantha Newport, BSc (Hons), MBACP, Dip. Psych. Couns.
Well-being is a central yet contested construct within psychology, encompassing diverse theoretical traditions, measurement approaches, and philosophical assumptions. Often treated synonymously with ‘happiness’, well-being in fact represents a multidimensional concept shaped by historical, cultural, political, and scientific contexts.
This article traces the development of well-being from ancient philosophical foundations to contemporary psychological models, examining hedonic and eudaimonic traditions, subjective and objective measures, and the emergence of positive psychology. Key debates regarding definition, measurement, cultural bias, and the role of negative emotion are also critically evaluated.
The article argues that whilst the study of well-being offers valuable insights into human functioning, its conceptual ambiguity and socio-political entanglements demand ongoing critical scrutiny.
The concept of ‘well-being’ occupies a prominent position in contemporary psychology, public policy, and popular discourse. Governments measure it, organisations attempt to enhance it, and individuals are encouraged to pursue it as a marker of a successful life by therapists, workplaces, and ‘Influencers’ in online spaces. However, despite its widespread use, ‘well-being’ remains difficult to define with precision. Its meaning shifts depending on theoretical orientation, cultural context, and methodological approach, raising important questions about what is being measured, why it matters, and how the resulting knowledge is applied.
Defining Well-Being
Well-being is best understood as a broad, umbrella term rather than a single, unified concept. It has been used to refer to quality of life, happiness, mental health, life satisfaction, and optimal functioning. The World Health Organization’s influential definition of health describes it as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being, not merely the absence of disease” (World Health Organization, 1948). This definition highlights well-being as something multidimensional; extending beyond pathology.
Commonly identified domains of well-being include physical health, mental health, material security, social relationships, education and employment, leisure, environmental conditions, and spirituality. These domains reflect both objective conditions (such as income or housing) and subjective experiences (such as satisfaction or meaning), illustrating the complexity of defining well-being in a way that captures lived experience while remaining measurable.
A key challenge for researchers is that different studies operationalise well-being in different ways, making comparisons difficult. This lack of definitional clarity remains one of the central methodological issues in the field.
In both academic and popular contexts, well-being is frequently equated with happiness. Psychological research often conceptualises happiness as ‘subjective well-being’ (SWB), defined by Diener and colleagues as a cognitive evaluation of life satisfaction combined with the presence of frequent positive emotions and infrequent negative emotions (Diener et al., 1999).
Subjective well-being is typically measured using:
Life satisfaction scales – either single-item questions or multi-item measures such as the ‘Satisfaction with Life Scale’ (Diener et al., 1985);
Affect measures – most commonly the ‘Positive and Negative Affect Schedule’ (PANAS), which assesses the frequency of positive and negative emotional states (Watson, Clark and Tellegen, 1988).
These components are often combined into a composite score:
SWB = Life Satisfaction + (Positive Affect – Negative Affect)
While this model has been highly influential, it represents only one way of understanding well-being. It privileges individual evaluation and emotional experience, raising questions about whether happiness alone adequately captures what it means to live well.
The study of well-being has expanded beyond individuals to encompass populations and nations. In the United Kingdom, the Office for National Statistics introduced large-scale measures of national well-being, asking citizens to rate life satisfaction, happiness, anxiety, and perceived meaning in life (Office for National Statistics, 2011). Similarly, international initiatives such as the ‘World Happiness Report’ compare well-being across countries (Helliwell, Layard and Sachs, 2012).
These efforts reflect growing recognition that economic indicators alone, such as GDP, fail to capture quality of life. However, national well-being measures also raise political and ethical questions. Decisions about what to measure, how to interpret results, and how findings are used in policy are shaped by social values and ideological priorities.
Historical Foundations
The roots of well-being research extend far beyond modern psychology. Ancient philosophical traditions grappled with the question of how one ought to live, framing well-being as a moral and existential concern.
In Ancient Greek philosophy, thinkers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle placed the concept of ‘eudaimonia’ (often translated as ‘happiness’ or ‘flourishing’) at the centre of ethical life. Aristotle described eudaimonia as the highest practical good, achieved through virtuous activity and the realisation of human potential (Nicomachean Ethics; Aristotle, trans. 2009). Importantly, he distinguished this from fleeting pleasure; emphasising character, purpose, and excellence over momentary enjoyment.
Greek schools of thought diverged in their emphasis, however. Hedonistic traditions focused on pleasure and the avoidance of pain, while Epicureanism advocated for moderation, tranquillity, and meaningful relationships. These early distinctions continue to shape contemporary debates in well-being research.
Hedonic well-being is concerned with pleasure, positive feelings, and satisfaction. It emphasises feeling good and maintaining positive emotional states. Subjective well-being measures largely fall within this tradition, focusing on affect and life evaluation.
Whereas eudaimonic well-being emphasises living well rather than feeling good. It involves meaning, purpose, personal growth, authenticity, and the realisation of one’s potential. Rather than avoiding discomfort, eudaimonia recognises that challenge and effort may be integral to a fulfilling life (Kashdan, Biswas-Diener and King, 2008).
Although conceptually distinct, these approaches often overlap in practice. Positive emotions frequently accompany meaningful engagement, and purposeful activity can enhance satisfaction. However, the distinction remains important for understanding differing assumptions about what constitutes a good life.
Eudaimonic Models of Well-Being
Several influential psychological models draw explicitly on eudaimonic principles.
Carol Ryff (1989) proposed a six-dimensional model of psychological well-being:
Autonomy;
Positive relations with others;
Self-acceptance;
Personal growth;
Purpose in life;
Environmental mastery.
High levels across these domains indicate effective psychological functioning rather than mere happiness.
Another model, by Ryan and Deci (2000), called Self-Determination Theory, identifies three universal psychological needs:
Autonomy;
Competence;
Relatedness.
Where the fulfilment of these needs is associated with intrinsic motivation, growth, and well-being across cultures.
The PERMA framework by Seligman (2011) conceptualises well-being as comprising of:
Positive emotion;
Engagement;
Relationships;
Meaning;
Accomplishment.
This model integrates hedonic and eudaimonic elements and has been widely applied in education, organisations, and clinical settings.
Further models exist, such as ‘flourishing models’, as proposed by Keyes (2005) and later refined by Huppert and So (2013), working to conceptualise well-being as the presence of positive mental functioning rather than simply the absence of mental illness.
The Emergence of Well-Being Research
The scientific study of well-being gained momentum in the post-war period. Early research, such as Bradburn’s work in the 1960s, shifted attention away from psychiatric illness and toward mental health in general populations. Bradburn demonstrated that positive and negative affect vary independently, challenging assumptions that mental health exists on a single continuum from distress to happiness (Bradburn, 1969).
Subsequent developments included life satisfaction surveys and growing interest in subjective experience (Andrews and Withey, 1976). These trends aligned with the rise of humanistic psychology, which emphasised personal meaning, growth, and self-actualisation.
Humanistic psychology, associated with figures such as Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow, reacted against both psychoanalysis and behaviourism. It framed individuals as inherently motivated toward growth and fulfilment, emphasising choice, responsibility, and authenticity (Rogers, 1961; Maslow, 1968).
While influential, humanistic psychology faced substantial criticism. Critics argued that it lacked empirical rigour, neglected biological and social constraints, and reflected Western, individualistic values. Its association with self-help movements also raised concerns about oversimplification and excessive focus on the self at the expense of social structures.
Positive psychology emerged later, around the year 2000, championed by Martin Seligman and colleagues, and advanced by Dr Orin C Davis, expanding the field with his research into engineering self-actualisation, flow, creativity, mentoring, and hypnosis; earning the first ever Doctorate in Positive Psychology (read our personal interview with Dr Davis, here).
Positive Psychology sought to rebalance psychology’s focus by studying optimal human functioning alongside mental illness (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Defined as the scientific study of what enables individuals and communities to thrive, positive psychology reinvigorated interest in well-being, strengths, resilience, and meaning.
This approach generated a substantial evidence base demonstrating associations between positive affect and outcomes such as health, longevity, creativity, social connection, and success (Lyubomirsky, King and Diener, 2005). The “broaden-and-build” theory proposed that positive emotions expand cognitive and behavioural repertoires, fostering long-term resources (Fredrickson, 2003).
Despite its contributions, positive psychology also has faced sustained criticism. Concerns include:
Conceptual ambiguity and overlap with existing theories;
Overreliance on self-report measures;
Methodological weaknesses in intervention studies;
Cultural bias and individualism;
The marginalisation of negative emotions (Lazarus, 2003; Lomas, 2016).
Research suggests that excessive or poorly timed positivity can be counterproductive, reducing empathy, increasing risk-taking, and undermining motivation (Gruber, Mauss and Tamir, 2011; Mauss et al., 2012). Moreover, emotions such as sadness and anger may serve adaptive functions, particularly in response to injustice or loss.
Socio-Political Context and Well-Being
Well-being research does not occur in a vacuum. Historical events such as economic crises, political upheaval, and social inequality shape both well-being itself and how it is studied. There is increasing recognition that socio-economic factors, such as poverty, inequality, health, and relationships, play a central role in shaping life satisfaction (Layard, 2005).
This raises ethical questions about responsibility. If well-being is framed primarily as an individual achievement, structural sources of distress risk being obscured. Conversely, acknowledging social determinants challenges simplistic narratives of personal control and resilience.
Conclusion
Well-being is a complex, multidimensional construct rooted in centuries of philosophical inquiry and decades of psychological research. While often equated with happiness, well-being encompasses broader concerns including meaning, purpose, relationships, and social conditions. Hedonic and eudaimonic approaches offer complementary insights but also reflect differing assumptions about what it means to live well.
The study of well-being has generated valuable knowledge and practical applications, yet it remains conceptually contested and politically charged. Definitions, measurements, and interventions are shaped by cultural values and historical contexts, underscoring the need for critical engagement.
Ultimately, well-being research invites not only scientific investigation but also moral reflection. Understanding how people live, suffer, flourish, and find meaning requires attention to both individual experience and the wider social world in which that experience unfolds.
References
Andrews, F.M. and Withey, S.B. (1976) Social Indicators of Well-Being. New York: Plenum Press.
Aristotle (2009) Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by W.D. Ross. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bradburn, N.M. (1969) The Structure of Psychological Well-Being. Chicago: Aldine.
Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J. and Griffin, S. (1985) ‘The Satisfaction with Life Scale’, Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), pp. 71–75.
Diener, E., Suh, E.M., Lucas, R.E. and Smith, H.L. (1999) ‘Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress’, Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), pp. 276–302.
Fredrickson, B.L. (2003) ‘The role of positive emotions in positive psychology’, American Psychologist, 56(3), pp. 218–226.
Gruber, J., Mauss, I.B. and Tamir, M. (2011) ‘A dark side of happiness?’, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(3), pp. 222–233.
Helliwell, J.F., Layard, R. and Sachs, J. (2012) World Happiness Report. New York: UN SDSN.
Huppert, F.A. and So, T.T.C. (2013) ‘Flourishing across Europe’, Social Indicators Research, 110(3), pp. 837–861.
Kashdan, T.B., Biswas-Diener, R. and King, L.A. (2008) ‘Reconsidering happiness’, Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(4), pp. 219–233.
Keyes, C.L.M. (2005) ‘Mental illness and/or mental health?’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(3), pp. 539–548.
Layard, R. (2005) Happiness: Lessons from a New Science. London: Penguin.
Lazarus, R.S. (2003) ‘Does the positive psychology movement have legs?’, Psychological Inquiry, 14(2), pp. 93–109.
Lomas, T. (2016) ‘The balance of positive and negative emotions’, The Psychologist, 29, pp. 94–97.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L. and Diener, E. (2005) ‘The benefits of frequent positive affect’, Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), pp. 803–855.
Maslow, A.H. (1968) Toward a Psychology of Being. 2nd edn. New York: Van Nostrand.
Mauss, I.B., Tamir, M., Anderson, C.L. and Savino, N.S. (2012) ‘Can seeking happiness make people unhappy?’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), pp. 1108–1123.
Office for National Statistics (2011) Measuring National Well-being. London: ONS.
Rogers, C.R. (1961) On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000) ‘Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations’, American Psychologist, 55(1), pp. 68–78.
Ryff, C.D. (1989) ‘Happiness is everything, or is it?’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), pp. 1069–1081.
Seligman, M.E.P. (2011) Flourish. New York: Free Press.
Seligman, M.E.P. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000) ‘Positive psychology’, American Psychologist, 55(1), pp. 5–14.
Watson, D., Clark, L.A. and Tellegen, A. (1988) ‘Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), pp. 1063–1070.
World Health Organization (1948) Constitution of the World Health Organization. Geneva: WHO.