Eudaimonic Well-being: A Gendered Perspective
In this chapter we attempt to present a nuanced approach to eudaimonic wellbeing by considering it from a gendered perspective. Beginning with a discussion on two traditions of wellbeing – hedonic and eudaimonic – we briefly overview some literature on the similarities and differences for women and men on indices of wellbeing. Stemming from the position that gender differences in wellbeing are generally equivocal, we consider key methodological and philosophical issues that may enhance our knowledge on eudaimonic wellbeing from a gendered perspective. The development and validation of psychometrically sound measurement instruments – including examination of gender invariance – openness to explore eudaimonic wellbeing from a more social constructivist philosophical worldview, and embracing a fluid conceptualization of gender have merit for advancing this research area and furthering our understanding of wellbeing from a gendered perspective.
KeywordsHappiness Wellbeing Eudaimonia Gender
We would like to thank Erica V. Bennett for her guidance and insightful comments regarding the fluidity of gender when investigating well-being.
- Chinni, M. L., & Hubley, A. M. (2014). A research synthesis of validation practices used to evaluate the satisfaction with life scale (SWLS). In B. D. Zumbo & E. K. H. Chan (Eds.), Validity and validation in social, behavioral, and health sciences (pp. 35–66). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
- Herzog, A. R., Rodgers, W. L., & Woodworth, J. (1982). Subjective well-being among different age groups. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
- Horn, J. L. (1991). Discussion of the issues of factorial invariance. In L. M. Collins & J. L. Horn (Eds.), Best methods for the analysis of change (pp. 114–125). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
- Huta, V. (2013). Eudaimonia. In I. Boniwell, S. A. David, & A. C. Ayers (Eds.), Oxford handbook of happiness (pp. 201–213). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Lenroot, R., Gogtay, N., Greenstein, D., Molloy Wells, E., Wallace, G., Clasen, L., … & Giedd, J. (2007). Sexual dimorphism of brain developmental trajectories during childhood and adolescence. Neuroimage, 36, 1065–1073. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2010.07165.x.Characterization.
- Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being (2nd ed.). New York: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
- Perez, J. A. (2012). Gender difference in psychological well-being among Filipino college student samples. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2, 84–93.Google Scholar
- Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (2002). From social structure to biology. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 541–555). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Waterman, A. S., Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., Ravert, R. D., Williams, M. K., Bede Agocha, V., … & Brent Donnellan, M. (2010). The questionnaire for eudaimonic well-being: Psychometric properties, demographic comparisons, and evidence of validity. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 41–61. doi: 10.1080/17439760903435208.Google Scholar
- WHO. (2001). Basic documents (43rd ed., p. 1). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
- Wu, A. D., Li, Z., & Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Decoding the meaning of factorial invariance and updating the practice of multi-group confirmatory factor analysis: A demonstration with TIMSS data. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12, 1–26.Google Scholar