Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Affective Science logoLink to Affective Science
. 2022 Sep 28;4(1):45–48. doi: 10.1007/s42761-022-00149-y

Considerations for Advancing the Conceptualization of Well-being

Nancy L Sin 1,✉, Lydia Q Ong 1
PMCID: PMC10104967  PMID: 37070010

Abstract

In this commentary, we raise several points regarding Park and colleagues’ emotional well-being framework. First, we question whether the term emotional well-being is appropriate and whether a new framework is necessary, and we argue that the field may be better served through other efforts, such as clarifying the distinctions between different well-being constructs and providing guidance on best practices for measurement and intervention. In addition, we note that by placing well-being on the opposite end of the spectrum from despair and depression, Park and colleagues have overlooked the influences of stress, distress, and life challenges on shaping positive aspects of well-being, and vice versa. Furthermore, we challenge the conceptualization of well-being as encompassing how positive an individual feels generally and about life overall. In its current form, this definition of well-being is overly static and trait-like, whereas a process-oriented conceptualization would more closely align with how well-being unfolds in real-life contexts and would be more suitable for identifying mechanistic targets for intervention. Finally, we raise the concern that the process for developing this definition of well-being did not actively involve input from diverse communities that have historically been disserved and underrepresented in research, practice, and policy. The cultural differences in constituents of well-being as well as evidence demonstrating that key positive psychological constructs (e.g., positive affect, sense of control) are less health-protective in racial/ethnic minorities than in whites necessitate greater integration of perspectives from underrepresented communities to build a more inclusive and accurate understanding of well-being.

Keywords: Eudaimonic well-being, Hedonic well-being, Positive affect, Purpose in life, Health, Stress

A large body of evidence supports positive aspects of well-being as protective factors that promote better downstream outcomes in psychological, social, health, and work domains (Boehm & Kubzansky, 2012; Pressman et al., 2019; Sin, 2016; Walsh et al., 2018). As outlined by Park et al. (2022), research and clinical applications on well-being stem from different literatures and encompass a variety of concepts, including subjective well-being (e.g., positive and negative affect, life satisfaction; Diener, 2012), psychological well-being (e.g., purpose in life, mastery, positive social relationships; Ryff, 1989), and other constructs such as optimism and vitality (Boehm & Kubzansky, 2012). They asserted that a mutual definition is needed to advance research, policy, and practice on the topic. Park et al. (2022) described their procedures across six NIH networks for developing a definition and framework for emotional well-being. We agree with the authors that past work on positive aspects of well-being has been disparate, and we applaud the authors for making strides to develop a foundational framework to unite existing concepts and to move the field forward. However, there are four areas that we believe could be further developed to strengthen the potential contributions of the well-being framework.

First, although we agree with the authors that a common understanding of the constructs would be beneficial for advancing the field, we wonder whether it is necessary to introduce a new framework and a new term. Other prominent papers have already provided a comprehensive overview of components of well-being and have put forward terms—such as positive psychological well-being (Boehm & Kubzansky, 2012) or simply well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2001)—as umbrella terms for positive psychological factors. To build continuity in this work, it would be appropriate to use a term that has already been introduced in prior high-impact papers. We also note that emotional well-being and emotional wellbeing are widely used and have appeared in approximately 14,000 articles to date, according to Google Scholar. As evident from the word emotional, researchers use this term to refer to emotions, encompassing both positive and negative emotional processes (Charles, 2010). We do not feel that it is appropriate to co-opt this term and to change its meaning to cover other concepts—such as life satisfaction and sense of purpose—which are related yet distinct from emotions. Rather than conferring new meaning to this existing widely used term, the field might be better served by highlighting the distinct components of well-being and their unique (or shared) correlates with health, as well as best practices for measuring these distinct components and recommendations on intervention strategies.

Second, the paper characterizes mental health as “the spectrum from despair and depression to states of well-being and fully realized psychological health.” In doing so, the proposed framework misses a valuable opportunity to consider the roles of stress, negative emotions, and life challenges in shaping positive psychological well-being, and vice versa (Folkman, 1997). In fact, major life challenges represent one pathway that can lead to greater purpose in life, by invoking self-realization and catalyzing individuals to reorganize their priorities (Hill et al., 2014). Positive emotions and positive events are reported frequently in the midst of stressful circumstances (Folkman, 1997; Klaiber et al., 2021). Scholars have long posited that positive aspects of well-being—such as positive affect—could buffer against the emotional and physical health consequences of stress (Mroczek et al., 2015; Pressman & Cohen, 2005; Sin et al., 2015; Sin & Almeida, 2018; Zautra et al., 2005), facilitate faster recovery following the experience of negative emotions (Fredrickson et al., 2000; Ong & Allaire, 2005), build resources that can be drawn upon during times of stress (Fredrickson, 2013; Hobfoll, 1989), and serve adaptive functions in the coping process (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000). While Park and colleagues acknowledged that negative emotions may be conducive to flourishing, we argue that a meaningful and comprehensive conceptual framework of well-being should more strongly acknowledge and incorporate negative psychological states.

Third, emotional well-being is defined as “a multi-dimensional composite that encompasses how positive an individual feels generally and about life overall,” which implies that this construct is relatively stable and broad. The framework overlooks domain specificity (e.g., high satisfaction and mastery in some valued life domains but not others) and context specificity. These limitations are partially acknowledged in terms of the context-appropriateness of specific emotions, as well as the need to consider broader sociocultural contexts (family, neighborhood, school, social class, and culture). However, this framework does not acknowledge the dynamic contexts and experiences in daily life that underlie many (if not all) dimensions of well-being. It is well-established that positive and negative affect fluctuate moment-to-moment and day-to-day based on experiences such as stressors and positive events (Charles et al., 2016) and social activities such as volunteering and providing or receiving social support (Chi et al., 2021; Sin et al., 2021). Much of the variation in well-being is attributable to within-person fluctuations. For example, across a number of daily diary studies, we and others have observed that approximately 50% of the variation in purposefulness (Hill et al., 2022), 54% in social satisfaction (Sin et al., 2021), 25–43% in positive affect (Scott et al., 2020), and 40–57% in negative affect (Scott et al., 2020; Sin et al., 2021) are due to day-to-day fluctuations within an individual. This high degree of within-person variability complicates the widely held notion that some people are generally and consistently happier, less negative, and more purposeful than other people.

Both perspectives are valid, of course: People with higher positive psychological well-being tend to maintain better health over time than their counterparts with lower well-being (Pressman et al., 2019), and physical health is relatively better on days with more positive experiences (Sin et al., 2017) and higher purposefulness (Hill et al., 2022). By overlooking the contributions of life domains and ever-changing contexts in well-being, the framework in its current form is in danger of misconstruing well-being as a general, trait-like characteristic. This conceptualization focusing on individual differences in well-being is limiting because it reveals little about when (during what times), where (in what contexts), and how (through what mechanisms) the processes unfold. A process-oriented, domain- and context-focused approach is needed not only for understanding the antecedents and consequences of well-being, but also for developing effective interventions that target mechanistic pathways linking well-being to better health (Nahum-Shani et al., 2015).

Lastly, the extant literature is largely built on Western philosophical ideas and theories from pioneering psychologists including Erickson, Maslow, Rogers, Jung, Allport, and Jahoda, among others (Ryan & Deci, 2001; Ryff, 1989). The working group relied on existing constructs from the literature and input from subject matter experts, but this has resulted in a definition and framework that does not incorporate components of well-being across cultures and racial/ethnic identities. This limitation is important because a large body of evidence has documented cultural differences in the meaning of well-being and in the associations between well-being (e.g., happiness) and health (Yoo & Miyamoto, 2018). Park et al.’s (2022) definition is rooted in an individualistic cultural orientation that emphasizes an individual’s feelings, judgments, meaning-making, and personal autonomy and responsibility for actively pursuing well-being. However, many racial/ethnic cultural groups within the USA and in countries worldwide have interdependent views, in which well-being is conceptualized in terms of high social harmony and engagement in culturally prescribed social roles within one’s community (Mattis et al., 2016; Miyamoto et al., 2019; Schick et al., 2021). From an interdependent perspective, well-being cannot be separated from one’s social connectedness and relational harmony. In addition, sense of control (or personal autonomy) is less culturally valued in interdependent cultures compared to Western cultures (Uchida & Kitayama, 2009). Within the USA, sense of control is less protective for mental and physical health among Asian Americans and Blacks than for whites (Assari, 2017; Sastry & Ross, 1998). Furthermore, according to dialectical worldviews—which are more prevalent in East Asian and other interdependent cultures—positive and negative states are fluid, constantly change into one another, and coexist in balance (Miyamoto et al., 2019). The relationship between positive and negative states also differs by race: An analysis of over 7100 Americans showed that positive affect was less inversely related to negative affect among Blacks than whites (Lankarani & Assari, 2017). These observations are not well-aligned with the hedonic (experiential) formulation of well-being, which emphasizes the predominance of positive emotional states over negative emotional states. These cultural and sociodemographic differences in the constituents and health correlates of well-being call into question the accuracy and generalizability of the emotional well-being concept.

To advance the field’s conceptualization of well-being, we advocate for more active efforts to include voices from diverse communities, such as consultations, interviews, and focus groups or talking circles with stakeholders, leaders, and members of groups that are historically disserved and underrepresented in research, practice, and policy. An inclusive and community-partnered approach that embodies ethical principles of reciprocity and trust (Craven et al., 2016) is necessary for developing a well-being framework that accurately represents the breadth of optimal human experience. It matters that the field may be failing to adequately characterize the varieties of strength, resilience, and optimal psychosocial functioning in people of diverse backgrounds (e.g., Mattis et al., 2016). If the field continues to uphold an individualistic Westernized view of well-being as the standard, then other sociocultural conceptualizations of well-being will continue to be relegated as secondary and less valid. On a practical level, well-being interventions can be more effective when culturally grounded (Schick et al., 2021) or culturally adapted (Layous et al., 2013; Shin & Lyubomirsky, 2017).

As it stands, the emotional well-being framework recapitulates core themes from the literature on positive aspects of well-being. We believe that bigger steps forward are warranted. In terms of synthesizing the existing literature, efforts could focus on distinguishing between different components of well-being, offering recommendations for assessment, and reviewing intervention strategies. To make meaningful progress in the conceptualization of well-being, however, the field should integrate positive and negative aspects of psychological functioning, consider the complexities of dynamic contexts underlying well-being, and include perspectives and leadership from members of diverse sociocultural communities. As Park et al. (2022) stated, this work is a beginning rather than an end to the discussion.

Additional Information

Funding

This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (430-2019-0608 to NLS) and the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research (SCH-2020-0590 to NLS).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Data and/or Code Availability

Not applicable.

Authors’ Contributions

Both authors made conceptual contributions and developed the ideas for this paper. NLS took a primary role in the initial drafting of the manuscript. Both authors revised the manuscript for intellectual content.

Informed Consent

Not applicable.

References

  1. Assari S. Race, sense of control over life, and short-term risk of mortality among older adults in the United States. Archives of Medical Science. 2017;13(5):1233–1240. doi: 10.5114/aoms.2016.59740. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Boehm JK, Kubzansky LD. The heart’s content: The association between positive psychological well-being and cardiovascular health. Psychological Bulletin. 2012;138(4):655–691. doi: 10.1037/a0027448. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Charles ST. Strength and vulnerability integration (SAVI): A model of emotional well-being across adulthood. Psychological Bulletin. 2010;136(6):1068–1091. doi: 10.1037/a0021232. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Charles ST, Mogle J, Urban EJ, Almeida DM. Daily events are important for age differences in mean and duration for negative affect but not positive affect. Psychology and Aging. 2016;31(7):661–671. doi: 10.1037/pag0000118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Chi K, Almeida DM, Charles ST, Sin NL. Daily prosocial activities and well-being: Age moderation in two national studies. Psychology and Aging. 2021;36(1):83–95. doi: 10.1037/pag0000460. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Craven RG, Ryan RM, Mooney J, Vallerand RJ, Dillon A, Blacklock F, Magson N. Toward a positive psychology of indigenous thriving and reciprocal research partnership model. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2016;47:32–43. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.04.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Diener E. New findings and future directions for subjective well-being research. American Psychologist. 2012;67(8):590–597. doi: 10.1037/a0029541. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Folkman S. Positive psychological states and coping with severe stress. Social Science & Medicine. 1997;45(8):1207–1221. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(97)00040-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Folkman S, Moskowitz JT. Positive affect and the other side of coping. American Psychologist. 2000;55(6):647–654. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.6.647. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). Positive emotions broaden and build. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 1–53). Elsevier.
  11. Fredrickson BL, Mancuso RA, Branigan C, Tugade MM. The undoing effect of positive emotions. Motivation and Emotion. 2000;24(4):237–258. doi: 10.1023/A:1010796329158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hill PL, Sumner R, Burrow AL. Understanding the pathways to purpose: Examining personality and well-being correlates across adulthood. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2014;9(3):227–234. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2014.888584. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hill PL, Klaiber P, Burrow AL, DeLongis A, Sin NL. Purposefulness and daily life in a pandemic: Predicting daily affect and physical symptoms during the first weeks of the COVID-19 response. Psychology & Health. 2022;37(8):985–1001. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2021.1914838. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hobfoll SE. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist. 1989;44(3):513–524. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Klaiber P, Wen JH, DeLongis A, Sin NL. The ups and downs of daily life during COVID-19: Age differences in affect, stress, and positive events. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B. 2021;76(2):e30–e37. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbaa096. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Lankarani MM, Assari S. Positive and negative affect more concurrent among Blacks than Whites. Behavioral Sciences. 2017;7(3):48. doi: 10.3390/bs7030048. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Layous K, Lee H, Choi I, Lyubomirsky S. Culture matters when designing a successful happiness-increasing activity: A comparison of the United States and South Korea. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2013;44(8):1294–1303. doi: 10.1177/0022022113487591. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Mattis, J. S., Simpson, N. G., Powell, W., Anderson, R. E., Kimbro, L. R., & Mattis, J. H. (2016). Positive psychology in African Americans. In E. C. Chang, C. A. Downey, J. K. Hirsch, and N. J. Lin (Eds.), Positive psychology in racial and ethnic groups: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 83-107). American Psychological Association.
  19. Miyamoto, Y., Yoo, J., & Wilken, B. (2019). Well-being and health: A cultural psychology of optimal human functioning. In D. Cohen and S. Kitayama, Handbook of cultural psychology, 2nd ed (pp. 319–342). The Guilford Press.
  20. Mroczek DK, Stawski RS, Turiano NA, Chan W, Almeida DM, Neupert SD, Spiro A. Emotional reactivity and mortality: Longitudinal findings from the VA Normative Aging Study. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2015;70(3):398–406. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbt107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Nahum-Shani I, Hekler EB, Spruijt-Metz D. Building health behavior models to guide the development of just-in-time adaptive interventions: A pragmatic framework. Health Psychology. 2015;34(S):1209–1219. doi: 10.1037/hea0000306. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Ong AD, Allaire JC. Cardiovascular intraindividual variability in later life: The influence of social connectedness and positive emotions. Psychology and Aging. 2005;20(3):476–485. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.20.3.476. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Park, C. L., Kubzansky, L., Chafouleas, S., Davidson, R., Keltner, D., Parsafar, P., Conwell, Y., Martin, M., Hamner, J., & Wang, K. H. (2022). Emotional well-being: What it is and why it matters. Affective Science. (in press) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  24. Pressman SD, Cohen S. Does positive affect influence health? Psychological Bulletin. 2005;131(6):925–971. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.925. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Pressman SD, Jenkins BN, Moskowitz JT. Positive affect and health: What do we know and where next should we go? Annual Review of Psychology. 2019;70:627–650. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102955. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Ryan RM, Deci EL. On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology. 2001;52(1):141–166. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Ryff CD. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1989;57(6):1069–1081. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Sastry J, Ross CE. Asian ethnicity and the sense of personal control. Social Psychology Quarterly. 1998;61:101–120. doi: 10.2307/2787064. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Schick MR, Kirk-Provencher KT, Goldstein SC, Nalven T, Spillane NS. A framework for the adaptation of positive psychological interventions to North American Indigenous populations. Prevention Science. 2021;22(7):913–922. doi: 10.1007/s11121-021-01282-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Scott SB, Sliwinski MJ, Zawadzki M, Stawski RS, Kim J, Marcusson-Clavertz D, Lanza ST, Conroy DE, Buxton O, Almeida DM, Smyth JM. A coordinated analysis of variance in affect in daily life. Assessment. 2020;27(8):1683–1698. doi: 10.1177/1073191118799460. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Shin, L. J., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2017). Increasing well-being in independent and interdependent cultures. Scientific Advances in Positive Psychology, 11–36.
  32. Sin NL. The protective role of positive well-being in cardiovascular disease: Review of current evidence, mechanisms, and clinical implications. Current Cardiology Reports. 2016;18(11):1–10. doi: 10.1007/s11886-016-0792-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Sin NL, Almeida DM. Daily positive experiences and health: Biobehavioral pathways and resilience to daily stress. In: Ryff CD, Krueger RF, editors. The Oxford handbook of integrative health science. Oxford University Press; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  34. Sin NL, Graham-Engeland JE, Ong AD, Almeida DM. Affective reactivity to daily stressors is associated with elevated inflammation. Health Psychology. 2015;34(12):1154–1165. doi: 10.1037/hea0000240. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Sin NL, Ong AD, Stawski RS, Almeida DM. Daily positive events and diurnal cortisol rhythms: Examination of between-person differences and within-person variation. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2017;83:91–100. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2017.06.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Sin NL, Klaiber P, Wen JH, DeLongis A. Helping amid the pandemic: Daily affective and social implications of COVID-19-related prosocial activities. The Gerontologist. 2021;61(1):59–70. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnaa140. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Uchida Y, Kitayama S. Happiness and unhappiness in east and west: Themes and variations. Emotion. 2009;9(4):441–456. doi: 10.1037/a0015634. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Walsh LC, Boehm JK, Lyubomirsky S. Does happiness promote career success? Revisiting the evidence. Journal of Career Assessment. 2018;26(2):199–219. doi: 10.1177/1069072717751441. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Yoo J, Miyamoto Y. Cultural fit of emotions and health implications: A psychosocial resources model. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2018;12(2):e12372. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12372. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Zautra AJ, Affleck GG, Tennen H, Reich JW, Davis MC. Dynamic approaches to emotions and stress in everyday life: Bolger and Zuckerman reloaded with positive as well as negative affects. Journal of Personality. 2005;73(6):1511–1538. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-3506.2005.00357.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Affective Science are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES