Assessment Notes

Center of Inquiry Home

Spring 2005 The Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being

by Tricia A. Seifert, University of Iowa

Abstract
Well-being is a dynamic concept that includes subjective, social, and psychological dimensions as well as health-related behaviors. The Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being is a theoretically grounded instrument that specifically focuses on measuring multiple facets of psychological well-being. These facets include the following:
y y y y y y

self-acceptance the establishment of quality ties to other a sense of autonomy in thought and action the ability to manage complex environments to suit personal needs and values the pursuit of meaningful goals and a sense of purpose in life continued growth and development as a person

This straightforward inventory is easy to access and administer.

Introduction
Well-being is a multifaceted concept. It is often thought of as one of the hallmarks of the liberal arts experience, resulting from educational encounters that both guide students in the search for meaning and direction in life and help them realize their true potential. The Ryff is a straightforward and relatively short survey that assesses the psychological component of wellbeing. This review discusses the administration and cost of the Ryff; the theoretical background, development, and psychometric properties of the instrument; and possible uses of this instrument in higher education assessment settings.

About the Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being

The Ryff inventory consists of either 84 questions (long form) or 54 questions (medium form). There is also a short form, but it is statistically unreliable and therefore should not be used for assessment. Both the long and medium forms consist of a series of statements reflecting the six areas of psychological well-being: autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relations with others, purpose in life, and self-acceptance. Respondents rate statements on a scale of 1 to 6, with 1 indicating strong disagreement and 6 indicating strong agreement.

The following are example statements from each of the areas of well-being measured by the Ryff inventory:
y

Autonomy I have confidence in my opinions, even if they are contrary to the general consensus.

Environmental Mastery In general, I feel I am in charge of the situation in which I live.

Personal Growth I think it is important to have new experiences that challenge how you think about yourself and the world.

Positive Relations with Others People would describe me as a giving person, willing to share my time with others.

Purpose in Life Some people wander aimlessly through life, but I am not one of them.

Self-Acceptance I like most aspects of my personality.

Responses are totaled for each of the six categories (about half of the responses are reverse scored, which is indicated on the master copy of the test). For each category, a high score indicates that the respondent has a mastery of that area in his or her life. Conversely, a low score shows that the respondent struggles to feel comfortable with that particular concept. See Table 1 below. Table 1 Definitions of Theory-Guided Dimensions of Well-Being

Self-acceptance High scorer: Possesses a positive attitude toward the self; acknowledges and accepts multiple aspects of self, including good and bad qualities; feels positive about past life. Low scorer: Feels dissatisfied with self; is disappointed with what has occurred with past life; is troubled about certain personal qualities; wishes to be different than what he or she is. Positive relations with others

High scorer: Has warm, satisfying, trusting relationships with others; is concerned about the welfare of others; capable of strong empathy, affection, and intimacy; understands give and take of human relationships. Low scorer: Has few close, trusting relationships with others; finds it difficult to be warm, open, and concerned about others; is isolated and frustrated in interpersonal relationships; not willing to make compromises to sustain important ties with others. Autonomy High scorer: Is self-determining and independent; able to resist social pressures to think and act in certain ways; regulates behavior from within; evaluates self by personal standards. Low scorer: Is concerned about the expectations and evaluations of others; relies on judgments of others to make important decisions; conforms to social pressures to think and act in certain ways. Environmental mastery High scorer: Has a sense of mastery and competence in managing the environment; controls complex array of external activities; makes effective use of surrounding opportunities; able to choose or create contexts suitable to personal needs and values. Low scorer: Has difficulty managing everyday affairs; feels unable to change or improve surrounding context; is unaware of surrounding opportunities; lacks sense of control over external world. Purpose in life High scorer: Has goals in life and a sense of directedness; feels there is meaning to present and past life; holds beliefs that give life purpose; has aims and objectives for living. Low scorer: Lacks a sense of meaning in life; has few goals or aims, lacks sense of direction; does not see purpose of past life; has no outlook or beliefs that give life meaning. Personal growth High scorer: Has a feeling of continued development; sees self as growing and expanding; is open to new experiences; has sense of realizing his or her potential; sees improvement in self and behavior over time; is changing in ways that reflect more selfknowledge and effectiveness. Low scorer: Has a sense of personal stagnation; lacks sense of improvement or expansion over time; feels bored and uninterested with life; feels unable to develop new attitudes or behaviors.

This table was taken from Ryff and Keyes (1995, p.1072)

Who should use this? How should it be used?

In higher education, the Ryff could be used in a multitude of settings, such as a part of an intake and final assessment at a student counseling center. Counselors would be able to see what impact the counseling sessions had on students psychological well-being. Spiritual counselors could also use the inventory in their dialogues with students about developing meaningful purpose in life in the journey toward finding true "vocation." Perhaps the most obvious place where this

instrument may be used in the higher education setting is in conjunction with a health or wellness curriculum in residence halls, Greek-letter organizations, and first-year experience programs. Educators could administer the Ryff before and after initiating programs to assess their impact on students' psychological well-being. In this way, the Ryff scales could be used as a tool to inform what types of programs could be provided to enhance psychological well-being. More generally, the Ryff could be administered to a student population at the beginning and end of the college career to measure the collective development of well-being over time. Researchers might also consider combining data on student demographics (e.g., socioeconomic status, ethnic background, GPA, major, etc.) with results of the Ryff survey to examine relationships between student characteristics and well-being. Because of the reflective process involved in completing the Ryff, those who administer the survey must demonstrate care and concern for the participants. It is also important that those administering the Ryff acknowledge to respondents, prior to administration, that completion of the instrument requires self-reflection, which may be somewhat uncomfortable. If the results of the Ryff are shared with the participants, I suggest taking time to either discuss the results indepth and/or provide on- and off-campus resources for students needing to process the experience and what they learned from it.

Limitations
One limitation of the Ryff scales is that it relies on self-reported assessments of psychological well-being. As with all self-report instruments, students may respond in ways that are socially desirable rather than reveal their actual response to each statement. [5,12] Ryff suggests that in order to obtain a more complete understanding of a respondents psychological well-being, observational or survey data from others who are close to or important to the respondent is needed. A final limitation is that the validity of the instrument has been tested not on traditionalaged college students, but on adults age 25 or older. While this is a limitation, given the evergrowing proportion of non-traditional age college students, I find this to be of minor concern.

Administration and Cost

There is no charge to use the Ryff. However, institutions must pay for the cost of reproducing it from the electronic master file, which is sent upon request. Data entry and analysis costs are the responsibility of the party requesting the survey, which can be administered in a sit-down, phone, or mail format. No testing supervisors are required. Institutions or organizations interested in using the Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being should send a request and description of how the instrument will be used to Dr. Carol Ryff; University of Wisconsin; Institute on Aging; 2245 Medical Sciences Center; 1300 University Avenue; Madison, WI 53706; Phone: (608) 262-1818 ; Fax: (608) 263-6211; email: cryff@wisc.edu. Dr. Ryff requests that institutions or organizations provide her with the results of their study and any subsequent journal article citations.

The Theory Behind the Test

Assessing theoretically-derived constructs of psychological well-being has been mired in fundamental challenges. For much of the past century, hypothetical perspectives of well-being had little, if any, empirical impact because they lacked credible measures. Additionally, the criteria regarding what constituted well-being were diverse, extensive, and value-laden. Because credible theoretically-derived assessments of psychological well-being were nonexistent, nontheoretical conceptions were frequently used, though they were limited in their definition of constructs. [11] Researcher Carol Ryff recognized the need for an instrument to measure theoretically-derived constructs of psychological well-being. After summarizing the theoretical literature in mental health [6], self-actualization [7], optimal functioning [10], maturity [1], and developmental life span [2, 3, 4, 8, 9], Ryff found these diverse areas converged around a set of core constructs or dimensions: self-acceptance, positive relations with others, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life, and personal growth. [11]

Development of Instrument
Ryff began the process of designing an instrument to measure the theoretically-grounded core dimensions of psychological well-being by crafting definitions that would distinguish the poles of each dimension, measured as a scale. For example, a high scorer on self-acceptance "possesses a positive attitude toward the self; acknowledges and accepts multiple aspects of self including good and bad qualities; [and] feels positive about past life," while a low scorer on this same scale "feels dissatisfied with self; is disappointed with what has occurred with past life; is troubled about certain personal qualities; [and] wishes to be different than what he or she is." [11, p.1071] See Table 1 for all definitions of theory-guided dimensions of well-being. Using the definitions as a guide, writers created 80 items for each scale (40 for each pole of the scales definition). The guidelines for the items were (1) the item had to be self-descriptive and fit with the theoretical definition, and (2) the item had to be applicable to both sexes of varying age. Items were then eliminated if they were ambiguous; redundant; lacked fit with their dimension definition, distinctiveness from other dimensions, or the ability to produce variable responses; or did not incorporate all facets of the scales definition. [11] From this elimination process, 32 items for each scale (16 for each pole of the scales definition) were retained. This instrument was then provisionally tested on a group of 321 men and women. Respondents rated themselves on each item using a six-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. From the data of the 321 respondents, item-to-scale correlations were computed, resulting in another round of item elimination. At the final stage, each scale was comprised of 20 items (roughly 10 for each pole of the scales definition). There are currently three versions of the Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being. The longest consists of 84 items (14 for each scale) and is used by Ryff and her colleagues at the Institute on Aging at the University of WisconsinMadison. The mid-length version consists of 54 items (9 per scale) and is currently being used by the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study. The shortest version, developed for national telephone surveys, consists of 18 items (3 per scale) and is used in a

variety of large-scale national and international surveys. The multidimensional structure of psychological well-being, as measured by the Ryff inventory, has been tested and validated on a nationally representative sample of English-speaking adults age 25 and older. [12] Internal consistency (often measured by Cronbachs alpha) refers to the probability of responses from a set of items in a scale to be the same. The short version of the Ryff instrument has low internal consistency and is not recommended for high-quality assessment of psychological wellbeing. See Table 2 below. Table 2 Psychometric Properties of the Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being
Scales: Internal Test-retest consistency of reliability of 20-item parent 20-item parent scale scale
.93 .85

14-item scale Internal correlation with consistency of 20-item parent 20-item parent scale scale
.99 .91

Internal consistency of 3-item scale

.52

Self-acceptance Positive Relations with others Autonomy Environmental Mastery Purpose in Life Personal Growth

.91 .86 .90 .90 .87

.83 .88 .81 .82 .81

.98 .97 .98 .98 .97

.88 .83 .86 .88 .85

.56 .37 .49 .33 .40

Conclusion Despite some minor limitations (e.g., the instrument has not been explicitly tested on traditionalage college students, low internal consistency of the short version, and the possibility of selfpresentation bias), I find the Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being to be a valid and reliable measure of psychological well-being. It can aid colleges and universities in understanding the degree to which their students are self-accepting, are pursuing meaningful goals with a sense of purpose in life, have established quality ties with others, are autonomous in thought and action, have the ability to manage complex environments to suit personal needs and values, and continue to grow and develop. Although the instrument does not measure all dimensions of wellbeing, the knowledge of students psychological well-being can aid institutions in developing meaningful and intentional programming to enhance these dimensions of well-being. References 1. Allport, G. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

2. Buhler, C. (1935). The curve of life as studied in biographies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 19, 405409. 3. Buhler, C., & Massarik, F. (Eds.). (1968). The course of human life. New York: Springer. 4. Erikson, E. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. Psychological Issues, 1, 18164. 5. Galbraith, G., Strauss, M., Jordan-Viola, E., & Cross, H. (1974). Social desirability ratings from males and females: A sexual item pool. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 909910. 6. Jahoda, C. (1958). Current concepts of positive mental health. New York: Basic Books. 7. Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being (2nd ed.). New York: Van Nostrand. 8. Neugarten, B. (1968). The awareness of middle age. In B. Neugarten (Ed.), Middle age and aging (pp. 9398). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 9. Neugarten, B. (1973). Personality change in late life: A developmental perspective. In C. Eisdorfer & M. Lawton (Eds.), The psychology of adult development and aging (pp. 311 335). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. 10. Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 11. Ryff, C. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 10691081. 12. Ryff, C., & Keyes, C. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719727.

http://www.liberalarts.wabash.edu/ryff-scales/

PP Theory Eudaimonia Flow Gratitude Happiness Hope Optimism Philosophical Perspectives Positive emotions Post-traumatic Growth Resilience Self-Esteem Strengths The Field of Positive Psychology Time perspective PP Applications PP Directory PP Online PP UK PP Theory Eudaimonia The concept of eudaimonic well-being

The concept of eudaimonic well-being

y y y y y

1 2 3 4

(23 votes, average 4.00 out of 5)

Ilona Boniwell

Is happiness enough for a good life? This question is becoming increasingly prominent in positive psychology. Is feeling good an adequate measure of someone's quality of life? Do we really know what it means to be subjectively well when we assess someone's subjective wellbeing?

Problems with existing approaches to happiness

Many researchers believe we don't, saying that the current definition of well-being came about almost accidentally: first of all, researchers wanted to develop well-being questionnaires (because they needed to evaluate various interventions), then they derived the definition of wellbeing from these questionnaires, without paying much attention to whether they actually captured the richness of human wellness and happiness. It is probably true to say that contemporary literature on well-being largely ignores the contributions of humanistic and existential thinkers like Maslow, Rogers, Jung and Allport. It also doesn't pay much attention to the complexity of philosophical conceptions of happiness, even though philosophy has dealt with this subject since long before psychology even existed. Can someone be truly fulfilled without knowing what he or she is living for, what the point is, the meaning of one's existence? Is it possible to be truly well without moving a finger to change something in oneself, without growing and developing as a person? This is what is missing from the current mainstream theories of well-being - the notions of growth, self-actualisation and meaning. The current theories of well-being seem to give a one-sided, rather bare picture of well-being. In fact, what they do seem to cover quite well is the notion of hedonism - striving for maximisation of pleasure (positive affect) and minimisation of pain (negative affect). This hedonic view can be traced to Aristippus, a Greek philosopher who believed that the goal of life is to experience maximum pleasure, and later on to Utilitarian philosophers.

An alternative to hedonic happiness

Recently, another approach to a good life has risen out of the historical and philosophical debris the idea of eudaimonic well-being. Aristotle was the originator of the concept of eudaimonia (from daimon - true nature). He deemed happiness to be a vulgar idea, stressing that not all desires are worth pursuing as, even though some of them may yield pleasure, they would not produce wellness. Aristotle thought that true happiness is found by leading a virtuous life and

doing what is worth doing. He argued that realising human potential is the ultimate human goal. This idea was further developed in history by prominent thinkers, such as Stoics, who stressed the value of self-discipline, and John Locke, who argued that happiness is pursued through prudence.

Humanistic psychology and the actualising tendency

Humanistic psychologists, such as Maslow (famous for developing the hierarchy of needs) and Rogers, were probably the first eudaimonists' in the 20th century. Humanistic psychology grew up in the 60s out of the climate of pessimistic psychoanalysis and behaviourism that reduced humans to machines responding to stimuli. The premise of humanistic psychology was that people have a free will and make choices that influence their well-being. What also makes it very different from other perspectives in psychology is belief in the actualising tendency - a fundamental motivation towards growth. Rogers, the originator of the concept, describes it as: ...man's tendency to actualize himself, to become potentialities. By this I mean the directional trend which is evident in all organic and human life - the urge to expand, develop, mature - the tendency to express and activate all the capacities of the organism and the self. This tendency may become deeply buried under layer after layer of encrusted psychological defences; it may be hidden behind elaborate facades that deny its existence; it is my belief, however, based on my experience, that it exists in every individual, and awaits only the proper conditions to be released and expressed'.

What else lives under the umbrella of eudaimonia?

So, if you agree with the claim that just feeling good is not good enough for a good life, you are in a good company. There are several theories of well-being which try to co-exist together under a relatively broad concept of eudaimonia. I'll discuss a few of these below.

Daimon in action
Daimon refers to potentialities of each person, realisation of which leads to the greatest fulfilment. Efforts to live in accordance with one's daimon, the congruence between this and people's life activities, lead to the experience of eudaemonia.

Psychological Well-being
If you think you've just about managed to grasp the difference between SWB & SWL and to remember what these abbreviations stand for (subjective well-being and satisfaction with life), I bet you are going to be delighted to see me throwing something called PWB into the discussion pot. PWB stands for psychological well-being, which is a model of well-being widely advocated by a psychology professor, Carol Ryff. I wouldn't be surprised if she used the word psychological' only because subjective was already taken. Ryff analysed many various approaches to happiness

in different sub-fields of psychology and came to the conclusion that well-being should be seen as consisting of six components. These components are: self-acceptance (positive evaluation of oneself and one's life), personal growth, purpose in life, positive relations with others, environmental mastery (the capacity to effectively manage one's life and the surrounding environment) and autonomy. It is certain that this model is quite a lot broader than what is on offer in the hedonic camp, but is it right? Ryff has run many studies which provided so-called empirical support for her model. A lot of other people have run many studies that haven't. They found that all six components can be accounted for by only two dimensions, one corresponding to hedonic, another to eudaimonic well-being. Whilst all the components of PWB seem important, they still appear somewhat arbitrary. Would the model really suffer if one or two of the elements were not there? Would it be enriched if something else, like inner harmony, was added?

Ryff's model of psychological well-being

Self-determination theory
Another eudaimonic model, the self-determination theory (SDT) developed by Ryan and Deci, postulates the existence of three inherent fundamental needs, which are universal (found

throughout different cultures and times). These basic psychological nutrients are:
y y y

Autonomy - the need to choose what one is doing, being an agent of one's own life. Competence - the need to feel confident in doing what one is doing. Relatedness - the need to have human connections that are close and secure, whilst still respecting autonomy and facilitating competence.

SDT asserts that when these needs are satisfied, motivation and well-being are enhanced, and when they are limited, there is a negative impact on our well-functioning. Quite a number of psychologists agree that these three needs are the most basic ones, although self-esteem is also frequently mentioned. Ryan and Deci see a big difference between PWB and SDT in that autonomy, competence and relatedness are fostering well-being in their model, whereas Ryff uses these concepts to define it.

Other eudaimonic theories

Csikszentmihalyi's concept of autotelic personality is also claiming its place under the eudaimonic happiness umbrella. Autotelic people are those who often engage in activities for their own sake, and experience flow states frequently. One problem with allocating flow into the

eudaimonic camp is that some of Csikszentmihalyi's characteristics of flow, including losing track of time and forgetting personal problems, seem to have much more to do with hedonic enjoyment than with eudaimonic endeavours. The person behind the positive psychology movement, Martin Seligman (2002), introduced an authentic happiness model, in which he distinguishes between the pleasant life, good life and

meaningful life in an attempt to work out what well-being really is. The pleasant life is devoted to pursuit of positive emotions, and can be paralleled with hedonic well-being. In the good life one would use one's dominant character strengths to obtain gratifications - activities we like doing, akin to flow. Finally, meaningful life is about using your strengths in the service of something greater than yourself. Let's consider the above model in a little more detail. Seligman believes that both pursuits of engagement/flow and meaning can be considered eudaimonic. The research of Seligman and his colleagues shows that when people engage in hedonic activities (e.g. leisure, rest or fun), they experience many pleasant feelings, are more energetic and have low negative affect. In fact, during these activities, they are happier than those who engage in eudaimonic pursuits. In the long run, however, those who lead a more eudaimonic existence (work on developing their potentials and skills, learning something) are more satisfied with their lives. Some researchers claim that eudaimonic well-being is best achieved through personal development and growth , others through finding meaning in their lives. One way or another, they agree that there must be something else out there in addition to pure pleasure and happiness.

Oops...we have another problem

I wonder if you noticed a little problem with eudaimonic well-being? It's a MESS! Eudaimonic

well-being is not just an umbrella concept for many vaguely related theories, it's a pot in which anything that is not related to pleasure is mixed up. Let's take a look inside this pot once again. Some authors define eudaimonia as actualisation of human potential , while others associate it with frequent experiences of flow states. Other commonly used definitions include: realising one's true nature/ true self , personal growth, meaning, and the totality of the six components of Ryff's psychological well-being. Seligman defines eudaimonia as both flow and meaning. Can somebody please tell me what eudaimonic well-being is? Despite their attempts to shed light onto the construct of well-being, eudaimonic definitions make the picture even more complicated. Is realising your true nature the same as personal development? And what if your true nature is calling you to violence? Is growth the same as meaning? Carol Ryff is probably right to distinguish between them. Meaning may well be found in personal growth, yet it can also be found in serving others or in believing in God, which means that these two cannot possibly be identified. Are positive relationships important for eudaimonic well-being? Perhaps, but they also seem to be pretty important for happiness or hedonic well-being. On the basis of these somewhat contradictory theories and my own research, I would like to suggest that eudaimonic well-being can be achieved by pursuing either of the following two routes - personal development/growth, or transcendence. So don't give up yet, it all might make sense at the end!

Personal development/growth
Personal development is related to striving for change, striving to understand oneself and the world better, striving to grow as a person, to become better in one's chosen fields and domains of life. The routes of personal development and growth lie in the actualising tendency, yet the tendency on its own is not enough. Growth is often an effortful process, involving overcoming challenges and barriers, which can be external or internal. Growth and personal life changes are not always experienced as pleasant. Researchers found that even positive subjective changes can decrease positive affect. For example, one study has established that therapy clients who perceived more improvement in their functioning reported more depressive symptoms and lower levels of self-acceptance, but more personal growth at the same time. This is because any change is associated with loss, even if what is lost is an unproductive or even negative pattern. Carl Rogers, one of the fathers of humanistic psychology, observed that people who made real progress towards what can be considered a good life' would typically not regard themselves as happy or contented. He writes: The good life is a process, not a state of being'. When psychologists try to measure growth, they often look to what extent individuals are open to experiences or to what extent they are interested in learning. Yet, if we apply common sense, it becomes quite clear that openness to experience is needed not only in order to grow but also to experience pleasure, which is a facet of hedonic well-being. Whilst interest in learning may be a

very important aspect, it is hardly a sufficient indicator of human development. So how do we know whether the process of development is taking place; whether we are actually growing? We can look for several indicators of development. Amongst these are: complexity and differentiation (e.g. how well we can manage diversity); organisation and integration (e.g. ability to connect various elements); flexibility; sensitivity (e.g. being aware of details and nuances); mobility and dynamics (e.g. curiosity, interest, openness to novel situations); internal control (e.g. ability to delay gratification); broadness (e.g. open-mindedness); and efficiency in utilising one's potential and energy. No one indicator on its own is necessary or sufficient, so it's better to see if several of these changes are taking place.

Transcendence
Transcendence is related to dedication and commitment to something or somebody else but oneself. It is also strongly related to finding meaning in one's life and acting in accordance with this meaning. However, this meaning is necessarily related to transcending the personal (without losing oneself) for the sake of something larger than oneself (it can be children, meaningful work, the wider community, or a spiritual pathway). Transcendence thus leads to some external utility of one's life, through objective life results or virtuous living. Transcendence is a eudaimonic pathway to well-being that is independent of personal development (although undoubtedly both can co-exist). For example, a mother who dedicates her life to raising (rather than merely looking after) her children as fully functioning human beings may not have much time to devote to her own personal development. Many scholars, including Aristotle, Ryff, Seligman, McGregor and Little, etc., speak about transcending oneself for the sake of the greater good. I hope that introducing this common term would allow for greater integration between theories.

The very last note...

There is one more caveat to the story of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. The concept of satisfaction with life has been firmly allocated into the hedonic camp by the proponents of the eudaimonic paradigm, but it is actually questionable whether this needs to be the case. One can be satisfied with one's life if one wants to pursue happiness and is pursuing happiness successfully, OR if one chooses to live a more eudaimonically oriented life and this is exactly what one is doing. Remember, life satisfaction is nothing more than a congruence between the present and an ideal situation, both of which are a reflection of the person's own subjective appreciation of life. Therefore, life satisfaction can be conceived as an independent, subjective evaluation of the current status of one's life, which can be either hedonically or eudaimonically oriented.
http://www.positivepsychology.org.uk/pp-theory/eudaimonia/34-the-concept-of-eudaimonic-wellbeing.html