Please Scroll down for Article the Journal of Positive Psychology Two Traditions of Happiness Research, Not Two Distinct Types of Happiness Two Traditions of Happiness Research, Not Two Distinct Types of Happiness

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution , reselling , loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. In an earlier paper (Kashdan, Biswas-Diener, & King, 2008), we outlined a critique of the distinction being made between eudaimonic and hedonic forms of happiness. That paper seems to have had the desired effect in stimulating discourse on this important subject as evidenced by a number of responses from our colleagues. In this paper, we address these responses collectively. In particular, we outline common intellectual ground with the responding authors as well as points of difference. Introduction The surge of attention given to eudaimonia in the us to carefully scrutinize what we know, what we don't know, and whether there are any costs to the wide adoption of the idea of two types of happiness. We believe that eudaimonia has entered the lexicon of psychology with minimal scientific scrutiny and felt it necessary to ask some basic questions about this topic. We believe that the science of happiness will benefit not only from our skepticism but also from the intelligent commentaries to our paper. Indeed, we would like to thank our colleagues who took the time to present many insightful comments related to our original article on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being (Kashdan et al., 2008). We appreciate the willingness of these authors to meet the bold spirit of our essay with similar courage. Although we did not intend to baffle or provoke, we believe that our article has been effective in our fundamental aim of increasing critical dialogue and introducing intellectual caution about the topic of eudaimonic happiness. We do not want to lose either this forward momentum or the clarity of this dialogue by fault-finding each response in this issue. Rather than responding to each individual point made here we address broad points of …