Well-being as Need Fulfillment: Implications for Theory, Methods, and Practice

The concept of well-being has become a primary focus across human resource management, gerontology, mental health, health care, and public health, evolving from disparate streams into a major research area. The paper reviews current well-being theory and finds the field highly fragmented, with muddled theoretical and operational definitions and pervasive category errors (e.g., conflating causes and effects, states and traits, endogenous psychological variables and exogenous environmental or policy variables). It argues for a parsimonious approach that grounds well-being in the meta-theory of human motivation. A recent literature review identified 191 distinct components of well-being, which can be categorized as needs; the variety of dimensions can be accommodated by a unified model of 12 human needs. The purpose is to show how grounding well-being in motivational theory can ensure comprehensive and balanced frameworks, and to outline implications for methods and practice, emphasizing clear operational definitions and testable hypotheses about well-being dynamics.

The paper surveys seminal reviews and frameworks (e.g., Roscoe, 2009; Linton, Dieppe, & Medina-Lara, 2016; Oliver, Baldwin, & Datta, 2018; Blount et al., 2020) and documents persistent lack of consensus on definitions of wellness/well-being. Quotations from Ryff (1989) and Oliver et al. (2018) underscore the neglect of theory and confusion over dimensions. The proliferation of frameworks has accelerated, with average domains increasing over decades and some models proposing up to 17 domains. The authors identify pervasive category errors: (1) mixing exogenous environmental conditions (e.g., finances, occupation, environment) with endogenous psychological states in defining well-being; (2) conflating levels of abstraction (e.g., psychological vs. emotional vs. intellectual well-being); and (3) weaving in traits and states (e.g., Big Five traits, depression/anxiety, locus of control) as components without clear causal roles. Within social psychology, well-being is treated as an attitude with separable cognitive and affective components and independent positive/negative affect; work on global vs. domain-specific well-being has had limited success in predicting overall well-being from domain aggregates. Attempts to integrate exogenous and endogenous elements via discrepancy models (e.g., Michalos’s MDT) highlight the role of comparisons between what one wants and has, and cultural effects on status and subjective SES. The authors propose reframing well-being constructs as psychological mediators—motivations—in a flexible S-O-R framework enriched by deviation-amplifying mutual causation (Maruyama, 1963). They distinguish hierarchical levels for endogenous (rational/emotional processes; specific needs/goals/values) and exogenous (general conditions; emotionally/cognitively competent stimuli; specific affordances/resources) variables, arguing that current frameworks routinely misclassify environmental resources as well-being components.

The study conducts a conceptual reanalysis of Linton, Dieppe, & Medina-Lara’s (2016) comprehensive review of nearly 100 well-being models that identified 191 distinct components. Using a hierarchical, category-error-free framework distinguishing endogenous psychological variables from exogenous environmental variables, the authors classify the 191 components by levels of abstraction and map them onto a unified taxonomy of 12 human motivations (Pincus, 2022a, 2022b). Exclusions were applied consistent with a consensus definition of well-being as a multidimensional psychological state: 60 global, unidimensional well-being concepts; 12 physical states; 10 bodily functions; 22 purely environmental factors; and 7 general environmental concepts were removed from motivational mapping. The remaining 80 components were categorized into the 12 needs across four life domains (self, material, social, spiritual) crossed by three levels of striving (foundational/being, experiential/doing, aspirational/having), noting promotion vs. prevention poles for each need. The approach is comparative and theory-synthesizing rather than empirical data collection, drawing also on prior motivational theories (e.g., Self-Determination Theory, PRIME Theory, moral development frameworks) to justify the taxonomy.

• From the 191 components cataloged by Linton et al. (2016): • Two-thirds (129) appeared in only a single theory. • Only 12% (23) appeared in at least four theoretical frameworks. • The most cited component, psychological well-being, appeared in only 7% (13) of frameworks.
• The field exhibits extensive category errors, notably inclusion of exogenous environmental resources (e.g., finances, occupation, housing) as components of subjective well-being, conflation of levels of abstraction, and mixing of traits/states as components.
• A hierarchical framework separating endogenous psychological processes from exogenous environmental conditions clarifies roles: well-being components must be psychological; environmental factors are affordances/resources that influence need fulfillment.
• Nearly half of the identified concepts correspond to discrete motivations/needs, supporting a unified model of 12 human needs spanning four domains (self, material, social, spiritual) and three levels (foundational, experiential, aspirational), each with promotion and prevention poles.
• Mapping of widely used well-being assessments shows uneven coverage: some needs (e.g., safety, inclusion, purpose, authenticity, immersion) are represented, while others—recognition (social esteem), justice, and ethics—are notably underrepresented or missing (0% of qualifying items in several spiritual/social aspirational/experiential cells).
• The unified motivational taxonomy parsimoniously accommodates the proliferation of well-being dimensions, offering a comprehensive structure that prevents snowballing of ad hoc categories and supports balanced theory development.

Framing well-being as the consequence of motivational states and need fulfillment addresses the definitional confusion by anchoring constructs in endogenous psychological processes. This resolves category errors (separating causes from effects; exogenous resources from endogenous evaluations) and situates well-being within an established meta-theory of motivation (e.g., PRIME Theory; SDT; goal-attainment research by Diener & Oishi). The unified 12-need taxonomy offers theoretical guardrails that:

• Ensure comprehensive coverage across life domains and levels of striving, highlighting neglected needs (recognition, justice, ethics) for inclusion in future frameworks and measures.
• Clarify promotion vs. prevention expressions of each need, particularly relevant in social domains where positive and negative forces coexist.
• Generate testable hypotheses about inter-need dynamics (e.g., adjacency relations within the proposed pyramidal structure; antipodal tensions between self vs. social and material vs. spiritual domains) and cultural moderators (individualism/collectivism; materialism/idealism). Methodologically, recognizing well-being’s affective, motivational nature motivates shifts toward System 1 assessments (implicit, image-based, biometric, neurophysiological) to reduce reliance on rational self-report scales, which may reflect consequences rather than causes of well-being. Practically, embedding workplace and policy frameworks (e.g., the U.S. Surgeon General’s model) within the 12-need taxonomy reveals gaps (e.g., missing justice and ethics; under-specified experiential needs like authenticity and immersion) and supports precise, culturally aligned interventions that target salient needs and measurable outcomes.

The paper proposes a unifying meta-theory that reconceptualizes well-being as the affective-cognitive-behavioral output of motivational striving and need fulfillment. By clearly distinguishing endogenous psychological factors from exogenous environmental conditions and embedding well-being components within a comprehensive 12-need taxonomy across four life domains and three levels of striving, the approach curbs construct proliferation, improves theoretical parsimony, and highlights underrepresented needs (recognition, justice, ethics). This framework facilitates balanced, comprehensive measurement, supports System 1-aligned assessment methods, and yields testable hypotheses about inter-need relations and cultural influences. It also guides practice by enabling targeted, theory-driven interventions and by diagnosing gaps in prevailing well-being frameworks. Future research should elaborate inter-need dynamics, validate coverage across domains and levels, and develop culturally sensitive, motivationally grounded assessment tools.