Global study finds human flourishing varies widely across well-being dimensions

A newly public international dataset offers one of the broadest attempts to measure human flourishing as more than happiness or income. The Global Flourishing Study follows approximately 200,000 people in 22 countries and one territory, asking about six areas of life: happiness and life satisfaction, physical and mental health, meaning and purpose, character and virtue, close relationships, and financial and material security.

The project is designed as a five-year panel, with nationally representative samples intended to cover six populated continents. Its first two waves are now available without registration through the Center for Open Science, following an April 2026 announcement by Baylor University’s Institute for Global Human Flourishing. Baylor conducted the project with Harvard University, Gallup and the Center for Open Science.

The data’s value lies partly in showing that different measures of well-being do not always point in the same direction. In a 2026 comparative analysis, Indonesia recorded the highest average score on the study’s subjective Secure Flourish Index, at 8.10. Japan recorded the lowest score among the surveyed populations on that measure, at 5.89. Yet Japan ranked first on the paper’s separate objective flourishing index, which combines national indicators related to conditions such as health, security and material circumstances.

That contrast is not necessarily a contradiction. People’s assessments of their lives reflect expectations, social relationships, cultural norms and ideas about what makes life meaningful, while objective indicators attempt to measure external conditions. A country can therefore perform strongly on infrastructure, health or economic security without its residents giving equally high answers about their lives overall. The reverse can also occur.

The comparative paper combined 77 self-reported measures from the study with 34 national-level indicators. It found that countries tended to have uneven profiles rather than a single consistent position across all aspects of flourishing. Economic development, the researchers report, does not automatically produce stronger feelings of purpose or meaning.

The study also highlights differences between age groups. Many people aged 18 to 24 reported lower flourishing than older adults, although the pattern varies by country and by dimension. Initial analyses identified age, marital status and participation in religious services as notable factors associated with flourishing. These relationships do not by themselves establish that marriage, religion or age causes higher well-being; they show that such characteristics are linked with different reported outcomes in the data.

Comparisons over time offer another caution. Between the first and second waves, flourishing declined in 18 surveyed populations, increased in four and remained broadly stable in the United States. Because the first wave was collected mostly in 2023, the results represent an early period in a continuing panel rather than a final account of global well-being. Later waves will be needed to determine which patterns persist and which reflect temporary conditions.

The study’s design also reflects an important shift in research on human development. Conventional comparisons often emphasize national income, life expectancy or life satisfaction. Those measures remain useful, but they can miss whether people feel connected to others, have a sense of purpose, or believe they are living with integrity. Measuring several dimensions together makes it possible to ask not only whether people are comfortable or satisfied, but also whether their lives appear healthy, meaningful, relationally secure and morally engaged.

The results should not be read as a definitive league table of the world’s best places to live. Survey answers can be shaped by translation, cultural expectations and differing interpretations of terms such as happiness, virtue or purpose. The study’s authors caution that a numerical score may not carry exactly the same meaning in every society. Objective indicators also depend on which conditions are selected and how they are combined.

Even with those limitations, the open dataset gives researchers, governments and communities a more detailed basis for understanding well-being across borders. Its central lesson is straightforward: human flourishing is multidimensional, and national prosperity or average life satisfaction alone cannot describe it fully.