Enacting a Eudaimonic View: Development and Validation of a Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Well-Being in the Workplace

IF 3.7 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Journal of Happiness Studies Pub Date : 2026-06-06 DOI:10.1007/s10902-026-01048-w

Yusuf Arslanparcasi

{"title":"Enacting a Eudaimonic View: Development and Validation of a Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Well-Being in the Workplace","authors":"Yusuf Arslanparcasi","doi":"10.1007/s10902-026-01048-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Work serves as a primary determinant of employee well-being. Yet research has historically favored hedonic perspectives—focusing on job satisfaction and positive affect—over eudaimonic ones. While both approaches are complementary, there remains a critical paucity of validated measures specifically designed to capture eudaimonic well-being (EWB) within the unique constraints of organizational reality. Many existing EWB measures are context-free or rely on proxy measures that fail to reflect psychological well-being in the workplace. To address this gap, this study introduces and validates <italic>euwellbe</italic>, a novel 21-item questionnaire. Drawing on Ryff’s model of positive psychological functioning and work design research, the scale conceptualizes EWB through five components: meaningful work, autonomy, mastery, relationship with colleagues, and relationship with supervisors. Using a sample of 884 employees, confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated a satisfactory fit for this five-dimensional structure (<italic>χ</italic>² (184) = 678.24, <italic>p</italic> < .001, CFI = 0.944, TLI = 0.936, RMSEA = 0.059, SRMR = 0.059). All variables exhibited strong composite reliability (0.81–0.93) and sufficient convergent and discriminant validity. Furthermore, the results indicate that EWB in the workplace is a robust predictor of key outcomes, including job satisfaction and withdrawal behavior. This study contributes to the scholarly understanding of employee well-being by offering a theoretically grounded instrument for researchers and practitioners, effectively navigating the “conceptual quicksand” that has previously hindered eudaimonic operationalization.","PeriodicalId":15837,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Happiness Studies","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Happiness Studies","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-026-01048-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Work serves as a primary determinant of employee well-being. Yet research has historically favored hedonic perspectives—focusing on job satisfaction and positive affect—over eudaimonic ones. While both approaches are complementary, there remains a critical paucity of validated measures specifically designed to capture eudaimonic well-being (EWB) within the unique constraints of organizational reality. Many existing EWB measures are context-free or rely on proxy measures that fail to reflect psychological well-being in the workplace. To address this gap, this study introduces and validates euwellbe, a novel 21-item questionnaire. Drawing on Ryff’s model of positive psychological functioning and work design research, the scale conceptualizes EWB through five components: meaningful work, autonomy, mastery, relationship with colleagues, and relationship with supervisors. Using a sample of 884 employees, confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated a satisfactory fit for this five-dimensional structure (χ² (184) = 678.24, p < .001, CFI = 0.944, TLI = 0.936, RMSEA = 0.059, SRMR = 0.059). All variables exhibited strong composite reliability (0.81–0.93) and sufficient convergent and discriminant validity. Furthermore, the results indicate that EWB in the workplace is a robust predictor of key outcomes, including job satisfaction and withdrawal behavior. This study contributes to the scholarly understanding of employee well-being by offering a theoretically grounded instrument for researchers and practitioners, effectively navigating the “conceptual quicksand” that has previously hindered eudaimonic operationalization.

查看原文本刊更多论文

制定一个幸福观：工作场所幸福问卷的开发和验证

工作是员工幸福感的主要决定因素。然而，从历史上看，研究更倾向于享乐主义观点——关注工作满意度和积极影响——而不是享乐主义观点。虽然这两种方法是互补的，但在组织现实的独特约束下，专门设计的有效措施（EWB）仍然非常缺乏。许多现有的EWB测量方法与工作环境无关，或者依赖于无法反映工作场所心理健康状况的代理测量方法。为了解决这一差距，本研究引入并验证了euwellbe，一个新的21项问卷。根据Ryff的积极心理功能模型和工作设计研究，该量表通过五个组成部分对EWB进行了概念化：有意义的工作、自主性、掌握、与同事的关系和与主管的关系。在884名员工的样本中，验证性因子分析表明，该五维结构的拟合性令人满意（χ²(184)= 678.24,p < .001, CFI = 0.944, TLI = 0.936, RMSEA = 0.059, SRMR = 0.059）。所有变量具有较强的复合信度（0.81 ~ 0.93）和足够的收敛效度和判别效度。此外，研究结果表明，工作场所的EWB是工作满意度和退缩行为等关键结果的有力预测因子。本研究为研究人员和实践者提供了一个理论基础的工具，有助于对员工幸福感的学术理解，有效地导航了以前阻碍幸福感运作的“概念流沙”。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Happiness Studies Multiple-

CiteScore

8.60

自引率

6.50%

发文量

110

期刊介绍： The international peer-reviewed Journal of Happiness Studies is devoted to theoretical and applied advancements in all areas of well-being research. It covers topics referring to both the hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives characterizing well-being studies. The former includes the investigation of cognitive dimensions such as satisfaction with life, and positive affect and emotions. The latter includes the study of constructs and processes related to optimal psychological functioning, such as meaning and purpose in life, character strengths, personal growth, resilience, optimism, hope, and self-determination. In addition to contributions on appraisal of life-as-a-whole, the journal accepts papers investigating these topics in relation to specific domains, such as family, education, physical and mental health, and work. The journal welcomes high-quality theoretical and empirical submissions in the fields of economics, psychology and sociology, as well as contributions from researchers in the domains of education, medicine, philosophy and other related fields. The Journal of Happiness Studies provides a forum for three main areas in happiness research: 1) theoretical conceptualizations of well-being, happiness and the good life; 2) empirical investigation of well-being and happiness in different populations, contexts and cultures; 3) methodological advancements and development of new assessment instruments. The journal addresses the conceptualization, operationalization and measurement of happiness and well-being dimensions, as well as the individual, socio-economic and cultural factors that may interact with them as determinants or outcomes. Central Questions include, but are not limited to: Conceptualization: What meanings are denoted by terms like happiness and well-being? How do these fit in with broader conceptions of the good life? Operationalization and Measurement: Which methods can be used to assess how people feel about life? How to operationalize a new construct or an understudied dimension in the well-being domain? What are the best measures for investigating specific well-being related constructs and dimensions? Prevalence and causality Do individuals belonging to different populations and cultures vary in their well-being ratings? How does individual well-being relate to social and economic phenomena (characteristics, circumstances, behavior, events, and policies)? What are the personal, social and economic determinants and causes of individual well-being dimensions? Evaluation: What are the consequences of well-being for individual development and socio-economic progress? Are individual happiness and well-being worthwhile goals for governments and policy makers? Does well-being represent a useful parameter to orient planning in physical and mental healthcare, and in public health? Interdisciplinary studies: How has the study of happiness developed within and across disciplines? Can we link philosophical thought and empirical research? What are the biological correlates of well-being dimensions?