The Global Flourishing Study (GFS), a planned 5-year global longitudinal study led by the Human Flourishing Program at Harvard and The Institute for Studies of Religion at Baylor in collaboration with Gallup and the Center for Open Science, is using empirical science to answer a question of great interest to many: “What contributes to a life well-lived?”[1] The GFS is collecting data from over 200,000 participants in 23 countries and principalities around the globe representing 64% of the world’s population. Findings from the first wave of data were published last year, and subsequent data and results have since been released.[2]
Given that one of the major sources of theological reflection is experience, empirical data from a study like this offers valuable insights for theological thought. But more than that, the interdisciplinary nature of the GFS provides an example of how and why the humanities, including theology, can be part of data production and analysis.
The GFS aspires to assess flourishing, defined as “‘the relative attainment of a state in which all aspects of a person’s life are good, including the contexts in which that person lives.’”[3] This intentionally thin definition enjoys broad consensus across many disciplines, cultures, and traditions based on shared beliefs that flourishing is multi-dimensional, is not reducible to any one aspect of life, and is reflective of the social reality in which a person lives.
To assess how flourishing takes form, the GFS uses a 109-item survey.[4] Creating and employing surveys is a common practice in the empirical sciences, but the data are only as good as the measurement instrument used. The GFS uses a self-report method, which means respondents are asked subjective questions that they answer according to their perceptions of themselves. Self-reports have the advantage of inviting personal assessments of life, which is vital when measuring well-being, but they can be prone to bias and should be selected with care.[5] In light of this, conclusions drawn from GFS data are both useful and limited approximations of individuals’ life experiences. As a longitudinal study, the GFS is gathering data annually over five years, which will allow for meaningful comparisons of self-report changes over time.
The survey questions asked determine the data obtained, and so it is critical that each survey item is rigorously vetted. In this regard, there is great potential for interdisciplinary work where disciplines like theology and philosophy can supply conceptual clarity and precision to survey development, allowing empirical scientists to break down complex concepts into discrete aspects that can be identified and measured.
The GFS measure is a model for how this can be done because it is based on a holistic vision of flourishing informed by insights from the humanities. The core of the GFS is a composite flourishing score derived from the Secure Flourishing Index (SFI), a validated, 12-item survey developed by public health expert Tyler VanderWeele that asks about the following six domains of flourishing (two items per domain): “happiness and life satisfaction; mental and physical health; meaning and purpose; character and virtue; close social relationships; material and financial stability.” While VanderWeele admits that these domains are not exhaustive of flourishing, they are derived from interdisciplinary study and include areas that can be agreed upon across many cultures and traditions.[6] The remaining GFS items were put together by an interdisciplinary team of humanists and empiricists engaged in a rigorous, multi-stage process of soliciting worldwide feedback from content experts and the general public in an attempt to collate a wide array of aspects of life that may influence flourishing, including but not limited to events in childhood, participation in community life, and even forgiveness.[7]
Comparing and contrasting the GFS with another widely used measure of well-being, the World Happiness Report, illustrates why survey development matters. By breaking flourishing into six domains, the SFI offers a dynamic assessment of various aspects of life. In contrast, the World Happiness Report famously publishes a yearly ranking of the world’s “happiest countries” using one item to measure happiness, Cantril Ladder.[8] The one-item approach has the benefit of being easier to implement than longer surveys, but the subsequent results are limited to one data point per respondent. The Cantril Ladder states: “Please imagine a ladder with steps numbered 0 at the bottom to 10 at the top. The top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible life for you. On which step of the ladder would you say you personally feel you stand at this time?”[9]
Well-being cannot be reduced to a survey and so neither measurement tool paints a full picture. In both surveys, the countrywide estimates are imperfect efforts to understand what is happening in large populations and no score can represent the diversity of all lived experiences. The SFI has been critiqued for being overly individualistic and has been praised and criticized for including character and virtue, areas not usually addressed in well-being measures.[10] A recent critique of the Cantril Ladder suggests that the ladder imagery and language of “best” and “worst” elicit in people ideas of power and wealth, perhaps prompting responses that are about self-perceptions of status rather than happiness.[11] Despite their imperfections, these measures provide a window into what is happening in the world, and as a result, they garner significant attention and are used to inform public policy.
Because these measures are used in impactful ways, we must attend to how different approaches can yield divergent results. According to the World Happiness Report, the world’s “happiest countries” are consistently Nordic nations, with the United States in the top 20%.[12] In contrast, the GFS tells an alternative story. The first wave of findings from the GFS reports Indonesia as having the highest composite flourishing score, followed by Mexico, the Philippines, Israel, Nigeria, and Argentina, with the U.S. scoring in the lower half of countries.[13] Yet in the most recentWorld Happiness Report, Indonesia is in the bottom half of countries.[14] These divergent portraits of the global landscape illustrate how the measurement instrument shapes what data emerge. Theologians can contribute to measurement development by helping ensure that the items reflect the nuances of the concepts at stake.
Beyond method, the GFS results are worthy of theological consideration. Flourishing is complex and so it will be difficult to determine the numerous factors that contribute to Indonesia’s high score, but Indonesia deserves our serious attention. President Prabowo Subianto of Indonesia expressed surprise about the GFS results given the economic challenges the country faces. Nevertheless, he says, “I know my people, many of them live in shacks, many do not have clean water, many do not have bathrooms, many of them eat rice with salt. And yet they smile, and yet they hope.”[15]
It is not only that the GFS offers surprising results about who is flourishing, but it also provides insights into the dynamics and conditions of flourishing. For instance, the GFS reports that higher GDP is often associated with lower levels of meaning and purpose.[16] This suggests that we need to find ways to support economic growth that does not come at the cost of undermining meaning and purpose. Theology addresses this need and provides a roadmap for an economic approach rooted in respect for dignity and the common good.[17] These theological concepts could inform future survey work, shaping which variables are measured and how the resulting data are interpreted.
In addition, theologians can learn from those places and communities who have cultivated strong meaning and purpose. According to the GFS, in most countries, flourishing in general and life purpose in particular tend to be higher among those individuals who attend group activities. In the United States this holds true and, as is the case in many other countries, the increases are even higher if the activity is specifically a religious service.[18] Whether people derive purpose from community participation or whether people who have a great sense of life purpose are attracted to community life, we don’t know. But it is certainly the case that theology is lived out in community and community is a critical aspect of flourishing.
In these ways, the method and results of the GFS provide an opportunity to reflect on how theology and the empirical sciences can work together. But this interdisciplinary approach need not be limited to the GFS. At the Human Flourishing Program, we engage in innovative interdisciplinary practice in which philosophers, theologians, psychologists, and data scientists collaborate to conceptualize construct definitions, design survey items, and interpret results on a wide range of topics, including forgiveness, meaning, hope, and suffering.[19] Theologians need not cede the space of data collection to social scientists, but rather we can be an integral part of determining the collection and interpretation of data.
—
[1] Global Flourishing Study, 2026, https://globalflourishingstudy.com.
[2] “Global Flourishing Study – Wave I,” Nature, April 30, 2025, https://www.nature.com/collections/eaeicjffaf.
[3] Tyler J. VanderWeele et al., “The Global Flourishing Study: Study Profile and Initial Results on Flourishing,” Nature Mental Health 3, no. 6 (2025): 636–53, https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-025-00423-5.
[4] Tim Lomas et al., “The Development of the Global Flourishing Study Questionnaire: Charting the Evolution of a New 109-Item Inventory of Human Flourishing,” BMC Global and Public Health 3 (April 2025): 30, https://doi.org/10.1186/s44263-025-00139-9.
[5] Tyler J. VanderWeele et al., “Current Recommendations on the Selection of Measures for Well-Being,” Preventive Medicine 133 (April 2020): 106004, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106004.
[6] “Measuring Flourishing,” The Human Flourishing Program at Harvard University, https://hfh.fas.harvard.edu/measuring-flourishing; For the original publication of the measure, see Tyler J. VanderWeele, “On the Promotion of Human Flourishing,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, no. 31 (2017): 8148-56.
[7] Tim Lomas et al., “The Development of the Global Flourishing Study Questionnaire.”
[8] John F. Helliwell et al., eds., World Happiness Report 2026 (Oxford: Wellbeing Research Centre, University of Oxford, 2026), https://www.worldhappiness.report/ed/2026/.
[9] Gallup, Inc., “Understanding How Gallup Uses the Cantril Scale,” Gallup.com, August 24, 2009, https://news.gallup.com/poll/122453/Understanding-Gallup-Uses-Cantril-Scale.aspx.
[10] Tyler J. VanderWeele et al., “Flourishing in Critical Dialogue,” SSM-Mental Health 3 (December 2023): 100172, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmmh.2022.100172.
[11] August Håkan Nilsson et al., “The Cantril Ladder Elicits Thoughts about Power and Wealth,” Scientific Reports 14, no. 1 (2024): 2642, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52939-y.
[12] “World Happiness Report Dashboard,” World Happiness Report, https://data.worldhappiness.report/table.
[13] Global Flourishing Study, What Contributes to a Life Well-Lived? Highlights from the Inaugural Wave of Data Collection, Figure 2, 2025, https://globalflourishingstudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/GFS_Report-1.pdf.
[14] “World Happiness Report Dashboard,” World Happiness Report, 2025, https://data.worldhappiness.report/table.
[15] KOMPASTV, “President Prabowo Admits He Was Surprised by Harvard Survey Finding Indonesians the Happiest,” YouTube video, 05:09, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbpK5zzRasc.
[16] Eric S. Kim et al., “Mapping Demographic Variations in Purpose and Meaning Across the World: An Analysis of 22 Countries in the Global Flourishing Study,” kme7y_v2, preprint, OSF Preprints, April 2, 2025, Table 3, https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/kme7y_v2.
[17] David Cloutier, The Vice of Luxury: Economic Excess in a Consumer Age, Moral Traditions Series (Georgetown University Press, 2015); Karen Peterson-Iyer, “Human Trafficking, Coercion, and Moral Agency in Agricultural Labor,” Theological Studies 83, no. 2 (2022): 245–70, https://doi.org/10.1177/00405639221094328; Kate Ward, Wealth, Virtue, and Moral Luck: Christian Ethics in an Age of Inequality, Moral Traditions Series (Georgetown University Press, 2021).
[18] Global Flourishing Study, What Contributes to a Life Well-Lived?, Figure 6.
[19] Richard Cowden et al., “Blessed Is the One Whose Transgressions Are Forgiven: Conceptual Foundations and a Template for Measuring Christian Experiences of Reconciliation with God,” td8jp_v1, preprint, OSF Preprints, June 6, 2024, https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/td8jp; Jeffrey A. Hanson and Tyler J. VanderWeele, “The Comprehensive Measure of Meaning: Psychological and Philosophical Foundations,” in Measuring Well-Being, 1st ed., ed. Matthew T. Lee et al. (Oxford University Press, New York, 2021), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197512531.003.0013; Katelyn Long et al., “Hope and Optimism: Distinctions and Deepening Conceptions,” What Works Wellbeing, https://whatworkswellbeing.org/blog/hope-and-optimism-distinctions-and-deepening-conceptions/; Tyler J. VanderWeele et al., “Moral Trauma, Moral Distress, Moral Injury, and Moral Injury Disorder: Definitions and Assessments,” Frontiers in Psychology 16 (March 2025), https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1422441.