Search Results

For more information about the initiative, contact Dr. Jonathan Teubner at: jteubner@fas.harvard.edu and Dr. Keyun Ruan at: keyun@fas.harvard.edu Technology, at its best, is a tool crafted and deployed by human beings for human beings. However, modern digital and AI-driven technologies are often accepted as autonomous forces shaping society according to their own internal logic, independent of human values, cultural norms, and ethical considerations. This mistaken assumption —entertained by both tech optimists and tech pessimists—ignores the fundamental truth that technology is deeply embedded in human contexts. In partnership with the Happiness Foundation, this initiative seeks to re-embed technology within a rich understanding of human flourishing, ensuring AI is developed and deployed in service of individuals and communities rather than as a self-perpetuating system. Building on three initial projects—Humanity in the Digital Age, HumanConnection AI, and Flourishing Economics—we are expanding our focus to integrate AI’s impact across six interrelated dimensions of flourishing: Planetary Well-being – Ensure AI contributes to a healthy planetary ecosystem that can sustain species and populations today and in the future. Physical and Mental Well-being – Evaluate AI's role in emotional resilience, stress reduction, and public health. Financial and Material Well-being – Address AI's influence (both positive and negative) on employment, economic inequality, and financial security. Relational Well-being – Ensure AI is built to strengthen human relationships rather than substitute artificial interactions. Community Well-being – Ensure public, political and democratic participation of key decisions of AI development, especially when it comes to issues such as data privacy, data usage and equal access. Spiritual Well-being – Engineer AI applications to support meaningful work and leisure rather than eroding them that are aligned with ethical behavior and moral responsibility. By situating AI within this broader framework, we reject AI determinism—the notion that artificial intelligence is an inevitable, independent force shaping our social and economic future. Instead, we affirm that AI remains a human-directed tool that must be intentionally oriented toward human flourishing and the common good. Our framework for shaping and evaluating the impact of AI technologies on human flourishing is summarized in a 2026 paper, Flourishing Considerations for AI. We seek to challenge the view that sees technology in a self-contained sphere, running on its own rails and shaping society according to its own dictates. Instead, we argue that technology is not a self-sufficient entity, but rather a set of tools that must remain subordinate to the goals, norms, and cultural values that humans choose to prioritize and pursue. Far from being an autonomous force, technology is deeply contextual, and we advocate for a comprehensive re-embedding of technological progress within a rich understanding of human society and purpose. -The Common Good in the Age of AI, Jonathan D. Teubner, Richard Wood, Ian Marcus Corbin Read More: Grandeur of Humanity in the Age of AI. Brendan Case and Tyler VanderWeele. The Human Flourishing Blog and Newsletter. Can We Remain Human in the Age of AI? Tyler VanderWeele. The Human Flourishing Blog and Newsletter. VanderWeele, T. J. & Teubner, J. (2026). Flourishing Considerations for AI. Information 17(1), 88; https://doi.org/10.3390/info17010088. Teubner, J. (2025, October 15). Chatbots and the Divine: What people may really be seeking in their relationships with devices. Web Features, The Hedgehog Review. Ruan, K., & Bremen, J. (2025, April 16). How human-focused economics can reduce AI risk. Jonathan D. Teubner, Ph.D. is a Research Associate at the Human Flourishing Program at Harvard University and Co-Founder of FilterLabs, a data analytics company that leverages artificial intelligence to source high-quality localized data in hard-to-reach regions of the world. Dr. Teubner received his doctorate from the University of Cambridge (Trinity College) and has held fellowships at Yale University, the University of Virginia, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique in Paris. Keyun Ruan, Ph.D. leads Risk Economics at Alphabet-Google and is the Founder of Happiness Foundation, a charitable think tank at the intersection of technology, happiness and human flourishing. Dr. Ruan earned her Ph.D in Computer Science from University College Dublin and has served as a Visiting Professor at New York University. For more information about the initiative, contact Dr. Jonathan Teubner at: jteubner@fas.harvard.edu and Dr. Keyun Ruan at: ruankeyun@gmail.com

Due to the high volume of requests, our team may not be able to reply to every inquiry. For media requests, please contact isaiahbaldissera@fas.harvard.edu. About the Human Flourishing Program The Human Flourishing Program at Harvard University studies and promotes human flourishing, and develops systematic approaches to the synthesis of knowledge across disciplines. Founded in 2016 by Professor Tyler J. VanderWeele, the Program is based at Harvard’s Institute for Quantitative Social Science. Its work brings together empirical research from the social and biomedical sciences with insights from philosophy, theology, and the humanities to better understand what helps individuals and communities flourish. The Program’s research and impact work addresses topics including happiness and life satisfaction, physical and mental health, meaning and purpose, character and virtue, close social relationships, family, work, education, communities, forgiveness, love, hope, gratitude, and public health. Approved Name The Human Flourishing Program at Harvard University After first reference, “the Human Flourishing Program” or “the Program” may be used. Mission The Human Flourishing Program’s mission is to study and promote human flourishing, and to develop systematic approaches to the synthesis of knowledge across disciplines. Short Description The Human Flourishing Program at Harvard University brings science and the humanities together to understand and promote human flourishing globally. Extended Description The Human Flourishing Program at Harvard University, founded in 2016 by Professor Tyler J. VanderWeele, is an interdisciplinary research initiative based at Harvard’s Institute for Quantitative Social Science. The Program studies and promotes human flourishing by integrating insights from the social and biomedical sciences with those from philosophy, theology, and the humanities. In addition to foundational research, the Program leads and supports impact initiatives that apply scientific and humanistic insights to real-world contexts, including education, workplaces, families, communities, health, and public policy. Definition of Human Flourishing The Human Flourishing Program defines flourishing 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.” A shorter definition is: “a state in which all aspects of a person’s life are good.” References: VanderWeele, 2017; VanderWeele and Lomas, 2023. Key Research Areas The Program’s work includes research on: Happiness and life satisfaction Physical and mental health Meaning and purpose Character and virtue Close social relationships Financial and material stability Family and friendship Work and well-being Education and student flourishing Religious communities Forgiveness, love, hope, and gratitude Public health, medicine, and human flourishing Measurement and assessment of flourishing Major Research and Public Resources Global Flourishing Study The Global Flourishing Study is a major international longitudinal study of human flourishing, conducted in collaboration with Baylor University, Gallup, and the Center for Open Science. The study follows more than 200,000 participants across 22 geographically and culturally diverse countries. Flourishing Measure The Human Flourishing Program has developed a widely used flourishing measure based on core domains including happiness and life satisfaction, physical and mental health, meaning and purpose, character and virtue, close social relationships, and financial and material stability. Impact Initiatives The Program supports impact initiatives applying research on flourishing in education, workplaces, religious communities, health, public policy, and other settings. Tyler J. VanderWeele Bio <150 characters Tyler J. VanderWeele is a Loeb Professor of Epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Director of the Human Flourishing Program at Harvard University. <300 characters Tyler J. VanderWeele, Ph.D., is the John L. Loeb and Frances Lehman Loeb Professor of Epidemiology in the Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Director of the Human Flourishing Program and Co-Director of the Initiative on Health, Spirituality, and Religion at Harvard University. <1200 characters Tyler J. VanderWeele, Ph.D., is the John L. Loeb and Frances Lehman Loeb Professor of Epidemiology in the Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Director of the Human Flourishing Program and Co-Director of the Initiative on Health, Spirituality, and Religion at Harvard University. He holds degrees from the University of Oxford, University of Pennsylvania, and Harvard University in mathematics, philosophy, theology, finance, and biostatistics. His methodological research is focused on theory and methods for distinguishing between association and causation in the biomedical and social sciences and, more recently, on psychosocial measurement theory. His empirical research spans psychiatric and social epidemiology; the science of happiness and flourishing; and the study of religion and health. He is the recipient of the 2017 Presidents’ Award from the Committee of Presidents of Statistical Societies (COPSS). Dr. VanderWeele has published over 500 papers in peer-reviewed journals; is author of the books Explanation in Causal Inference (2015), Modern Epidemiology (2021), Measuring Well-Being (2021), Handbook of Religion and Health (2023), and A Theology of Health (2024); and writes a monthly blog posting on topics related to human flourishing for Psychology Today. Program Logos SVG Logos PNG Logos Images of Tyler VanderWeele HFH image from profile From the Harvard Gazette (must obtain permission to republish) Tyler image Gazette 1. Credit: Kris Snibbe/Harvard Staff Photographer Tyler image Gazette 2 Credit: Jon Chase/Harvard Staff Photographer Tyler image Gazette 3 Credit: Niles Singer/Harvard Staff Photographer Tyler image Gazette 4 Credit: Niles Singer/Harvard Staff Photographer Tyler image Gazette 5 Credit: Niles Singer/Harvard Staff Photographer

A brief update on open data, global research, public engagement, and the next phase of the world’s largest longitudinal study of human flourishing When the Global Flourishing Study launched, it was already ambitious in scale: a five-year longitudinal study of more than 200,000 people across 22 geographically and culturally diverse countries, designed to better understand what helps people and societies flourish. Receive Tyler's monthly insight and research updates from the Human Flourishing Program team. But the Global Flourishing Study was never intended to be only one publication, one dataset, or one launch event. It was designed as a long-term research resource: a way to study human flourishing across cultures, across time, and across many dimensions of life, including happiness, health, meaning, character, relationships, material stability, community, and more. 22 countries are being studied in the GFS. One year after the public launch of the first wave of findings, that broader vision is beginning to take shape. The study has already generated a large body of scholarship, made major datasets available for use by researchers around the world, contributed to public conversations about the future of well-being, and opened up new possibilities for understanding flourishing not only through survey data, but through in-depth interviews that will capture participants’ own descriptions of their lives. A new global research resource One of the most important goals of the Global Flourishing Study is open science. The study is not only producing findings from its core research team. It is also creating a public data resource for independent scholars, journalists, educators, policymakers, and other researchers interested in understanding human flourishing. Data from Waves 1, 2, and 3 are now available through the Center for Open Science, along with supporting materials to help researchers understand and use the data responsibly. These resources include codebooks, methodology reports, survey documentation, translation materials, preregistration guidance, and other tools that make the study more accessible and transparent. This matters because flourishing is not a narrow topic. It cannot be understood fully through one discipline, one country, one cultural context, or one kind of outcome. The Global Flourishing Study includes questions related to many aspects of human life, from mental and physical health to meaning and purpose, relationships, character, financial security, religious and spiritual life, childhood experiences, social support, and civic and political context. By making these data available, the study creates an infrastructure for many more questions to be asked. Researchers can examine how different aspects of life relate to one another, how patterns vary across countries, and how changes over time may shape later well-being. Research output has already exceeded expectations The study has also generated a substantial body of academic work. To date, the core team has published 85 papers on the Global Flourishing Study, most of them using Wave 1 data. Many of these papers are part of the Nature-Springer Special Collection, which already includes 67 papers and continues to grow. This publication record is significant for several reasons. First, it shows that the study is not a single research article, but a large-scale platform for sustained scholarship. Second, the papers cover many different topics, reflecting the multidimensional nature of flourishing. Third, the research has been made broadly accessible through open access publication wherever possible. The work is continuing. In addition to the papers already published, at least 75 further papers have been submitted to journals by the team. Additional papers are also being produced by researchers outside the core team, using Global Flourishing Study data to examine new questions and contexts. In other words, the study is already doing what it was designed to do: generating a field of inquiry around flourishing that extends beyond any one research group. Researchers are using the data Open data only matters if people use it. Early signs suggest strong engagement. As of May 20, 2026, shortly after Wave 1 and Wave 2 data were made publicly available, the Global Flourishing Study data had already been downloaded over five hundred times. Wave 3 data, which require preregistration, had been sent to over one hundred preregistrations. The Global Flourishing Study Registry also shows substantial use. It includes over three hundred preregistrations, with many linked to data, code, preprints, or publications. This kind of structure helps support more transparent research practices by connecting proposed analyses with the data and outputs that follow. For a study of this scale, that kind of early uptake is important. It means the Global Flourishing Study is beginning to function not only as a set of findings, but as a shared research platform. The findings have entered public conversation The Global Flourishing Study has also reached audiences beyond academia. Since the April 2025 launch event at Gallup headquarters, the study has received nearly 4,000 mentions across print, online, and broadcast media, including more than 1,400 media articles and two pieces in The New York Times. The study’s public-facing platforms have also seen strong engagement. The Global Flourishing Study website has had over 15,000 users this past year, and the main trailer video has received more than 328,000 views on YouTube. Global Flourishing Study content has also performed strongly on LinkedIn, including posts that have reached tens of thousands of impressions. This kind of public attention is encouraging, but it also brings responsibility. Flourishing is a topic people care about deeply, and the public conversation around it can easily become simplistic. The study’s contribution is to bring better evidence to that conversation. It invites more careful questions: What does it mean for a society to flourish? Why might some countries do better in one domain of life but worse in another? Why are younger adults struggling in many countries? How do meaning, relationships, religion, work, family, education, health, and economic security interact over time? What can longitudinal evidence tell us that cross-sectional studies cannot? The value of the Global Flourishing Study is not that it offers one simple answer. Its value is that it gives researchers, leaders, and communities a richer way to ask better questions. A more complete picture of flourishing One of the central insights behind the study is that well-being cannot be reduced to a single measure. Life satisfaction matters, but it is not the whole of flourishing. Income and financial security matter, but they do not capture everything people need to live well. Mental health matters, but flourishing also includes meaning, relationships, character, physical health, and the broader contexts in which people live. The Global Flourishing Study is helping make this multidimensional view more visible. In many countries, young adults are struggling not only with mental health, but also across other aspects of flourishing. At the same time, the data suggest that economically developed countries do not always score highest on dimensions such as meaning, relationships, or character. These findings complicate familiar assumptions about progress and well-being. They also point to the need for a broader public conversation. If societies measure only economic growth, they may miss other important aspects of human life. If they measure only happiness or life evaluation, they may miss meaning, relationships, and virtue. If they focus only on problems, they may fail to understand the conditions that help people live well. The Global Flourishing Study offers a wider lens. What comes next The next phase of the study will continue to deepen this work. Researchers are now analyzing and writing papers using Wave 2 and Wave 3 data, with many more publications expected. Wave 4 data collection and future analyses will further strengthen the study’s ability to examine changes in flourishing over time. The team is also developing new ways of understanding flourishing beyond standard survey responses. One emerging effort will use AI-assisted in-depth interviews with approximately 3,000 Global Flourishing Study participants in the United States. This approach will allow researchers to connect quantitative data with participants’ own descriptions of their lives, giving a richer picture of what flourishing means in practice. Similar smaller efforts are also being explored in Sweden and Japan. Another public-facing effort is a Global Flourishing Study documentary. In May 2026, a film crew traveled to Sweden with the GFS project manager to interview people about flourishing and their lives in Sweden. Additional interviews are planned, with the goal of developing a short documentary film for a future Wave 2/3 launch event, and the possibility of a longer documentary series. These next steps reflect a larger point: the study is still unfolding. The first wave gave an initial picture. Later waves will allow researchers to ask stronger questions about change over time, possible determinants of flourishing, and how patterns differ across countries and cultures. Why this matters The Global Flourishing Study is built around a simple but far-reaching premise: what we measure shapes what we notice, what we study, what we discuss, and what we try to improve. If we want to better understand human life, we need better ways to measure more of what matters. We need data on health, but also meaning. We need data on financial security, but also relationships. We need data on individuals, but also the communities and contexts in which they live. We need evidence from many countries and cultures, not only from a narrow set of high-income societies. The Global Flourishing Study is helping build that foundation. Its early progress suggests that the study is becoming what its founders hoped it would be: a global resource for understanding the conditions under which people and societies flourish. That work is still in progress. But the first stage has already made one thing clear: a richer science of human flourishing is now possible. Receive Tyler's monthly insight and research updates from the Human Flourishing Program team.

AI must be judged by whether it helps us think more deeply, work more justly, and love more faithfully. By Brendan Case and Tyler J. VanderWeele Key points AI should serve human flourishing, not efficiency alone. The encyclical frames AI through dignity, the common good, solidarity, subsidiarity, and social justice, asking whether technology helps people become more humane, relational, and responsible. AI risks weakening core human capacities. Pope Leo warns that overreliance on AI can diminish creativity, judgment, knowledge, and genuine relationships, especially when people mistake machine-generated outputs for neutral truth or simulated interaction for real connection. Work remains central to human dignity. The piece emphasizes that automation must protect employment, retraining, and worker participation, because work is not merely economic production but a pathway to maturity, dignity, and flourishing. Receive Tyler's monthly insight and research updates from the Human Flourishing Program team. An Encyclical on AI The topic of AI has dominated much public discourse recently, and we thus discussed flourishing considerations for AI in our March newsletter. This past week, Pope Leo XIV published his first encyclical letter, Magnifica Humanitas (“Magnificent Humanity”), “On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence.” Many of the themes resonated with what we put forward, including the need to preserve human reason and creativity, the potential threats to human knowledge and human relationships, and on work as a pathway to flourishing. Pope Leo even comments on the importance of well-being measures beyond GDP in advancing societal flourishing. His letter, in fact, commemorates the 135th anniversary of the publication of the previous Pope Leo (XIII)’s Rerum Novarum (“Of New Things”), which launched the tradition of “social encyclicals” with reflections on the social, economic, and political transformations within society. Pope Leo XIV seeks to bring the riches of Catholic social teaching to bear on the prospects and perils of the AI revolution. An intervention on so urgent a topic by an observer as eminent as the Pope arguably ought to be of interest to all people of goodwill, and it thus seemed worth reflecting upon further. These matters are critical for the future of our world. Earlier this month, I (Tyler) spent two days at Anthropic headquarters with co-founder Chris Olah and others discussing flourishing, ethics, and AI; it truly was impressive how seriously they were wrestling with these issues, and therefore fitting and heartening also to have Chris Olah’s presence and remarks at the release of the encyclical, again reaffirming the importance of these issues. Our aim here is not to offer a complete summary of the Pope’s rich reflections, but rather to consider how Magnifica Humanitas deepens our own previous reflections on orienting AI to human flourishing, and to invite readers – particularly those from outside the Catholic community – into a sustained engagement with it. AI and Society Magnifica Humanitas is not principally a reflection on the nature of AI itself, though Pope Leo notes in passing that AI does not undergo experiences, or feel joy, or understand what is produced, but “merely imitates certain functions of human intelligence.” Rather, his aim is to discern how to orient AI to the common good, without yielding to a “technocratic paradigm,” which “lets the logic of efficiency, control and profit alone shape personal, social and economic decisions.” Much of our proposal on flourishing considerations for AI concerned either developers or users of AI technologies, but as we noted, there are much broader societal, national, and international concerns as well, and these too are addressed by the encyclical letter. The letter in fact draws upon the rich Catholic social tradition, beginning with the dignity of the human person and the priority of the “common good” – the sum of social goods which must be cultivated and enjoyed in common and the further principles of the universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity, and social justice specify how the common good is realized in practice, with the universal destination of goods clarifying that materials goods are to sustain the lives of all, subsidiarity commending the cultivation and administration of those goods as locally and organically as possible, and solidarity identifying the mutual responsibility of each person for all others, while “social justice is […] the capacity of a social, economic and political order to allow everyone — particularly the weakest — to live a truly dignified life, without leaving anyone behind.” These principles provide the criteria for assessing progress in “integral human development” – what we would call “flourishing”. Pope Leo proposes that we ask of particular problems and prospects of AI the question “Do they truly help individuals and peoples to become more humane and fraternal, while respecting our common home and future generations?” Drawing upon these principles, Pope Leo asks us to consider the prospects and perils of AI tools, beginning with their potential effects on individuals’ cognitive and relational capacities. He writes, “The ease with which results are obtained” with tools such as large language models can “weaken personal creativity and judgment”; the impression of objectivity they convey can lead us to mistake “the cultural assumptions of those who designed and trained them” for the nature of things; and their “simulation of human communication” can “create the illusion of a relationship with a real personal subject,” with the risk that users “may gradually lose the very desire to form genuine human connections.” Without rejecting these new technologies, Pope Leo emphasizes that “educating people about the use of AI […] involves teaching them to decide when and for what purpose it ought not to be used.” Pope Leo identifies a number of potentially disruptive collective impacts from AI, including the environmental impact of the huge, water-guzzling data centers that power the technology; the mistreatment of low-paid workers who create training data or mine the “rare earth elements” which are critical for the production of the chips that run leading AI models; or the risk that AI will make wars more common, impersonal, and cynical, offering critical principles to guide ethical discussion on these matters. AI and Work There are also potentially profound effects of AI on employment, with industry projections that these tools could automate tens of millions of jobs on a relatively short timeline. Resuming a theme that goes back to Rerum Novarum, the encyclical notes, “work is not simply an instrument; it expresses and enhances the dignity of our lives. It is a requirement of the human condition, a normal path toward maturity, development, and personal fulfilment.” As such, “the protection of employment opportunities and the irreplaceable role of the individual must remain the general rule,” or, as we would say it, work is a critical pathway to human flourishing. It is thus important that “every introduction of automation and AI should be accompanied by verifiable measures to protect the employment, retraining and participation of workers.” While Pope Leo acknowledges that the taxation and redistribution of any windfall profits that accrue to AI firms might become necessary, he emphasizes that “the pursuit of social justice should not be considered a separate issue that follows only after the production of wealth, as if the economy existed solely to create wealth, with politicians only intervening afterward in order to distribute it.” AI and the Future Magnifica Humanitas concludes with a reflection on the prospect that AI tools will deepen and entrench a “culture of power” instead of fostering a “civilization of love.” The Pope observes, “There seems to be no limit to the race — driven by a dehumanizing ambition — to develop evermore powerful technologies or to secure control over them” (§185). The Pope counters with what we suspect is the first-ever quotation of the Lord of the Rings in a papal encyclical: “‘It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till.’ The civilization of love will not arise from a single or spectacular gesture, but from the sum total of small and steadfast acts of fidelity that serve as a bulwark against dehumanization.” We need to foster love to promote flourishing. This call to individual and collective responsibility is an important contrast both to the prophecies of doom, and the promises of utopia, which dominate so much contemporary commentary on AI. Without discounting the importance of preparing for worst-case scenarios or striving for truly transformative technological breakthroughs, the most important impacts of AI in the near-term will be those on our hearts and minds. Every day we hold onto and even strengthen our ability to think, to work, or to love is a small victory for humanity in the face of the inhuman project of potentially trying to escape it. Receive Tyler's monthly insight and research updates from the Human Flourishing Program team. Reference VanderWeele, T.J. and Teubner J.D. (2026). Flourishing considerations for AI. Information, 17:88.

Julius Paulsen, Sinappipelto What helps people flourish? Research points to a number of simple practices and commitments that can support happiness, health, meaning, character, and close relationships. The activities below are practical, accessible, and grounded in scientific research. They are organized into four groups: cognitive exercises, behaviors you can change, relational and institutional practices, and resources for psychological distress. This summary is based on the article Activities for flourishing: an evidence-based guide, by Tyler VanderWeele. Receive Tyler's monthly insight and research updates from the Human Flourishing Program team. Albert Edelfelt, Skärgårdslandskap Cognitive Exercises Cognitive exercises can help orient the mind toward what is good: gratitude looks to the good in the past, savoring attends to the good in the present, and imagining one’s best possible self reflects on the good that may be pursued in the future. Gratitude Gratitude exercises often involve writing down things one is grateful for. In one randomized trial, participants reflected once per week on five things they were grateful for and wrote them down for ten consecutive weeks. Compared with other groups, they reported higher gratitude, better feelings about life as a whole, fewer physical symptom complaints, and more and better sleep (Emmons and McCullough, 2003). Another exercise asked participants to write down three things that went well each day and their causes for one week. Those assigned to this exercise had higher happiness and lower depressive symptoms, even six months later (Seligman, Steen, Park, and Peterson, 2005). A meta-analysis suggests that gratitude exercises tend to increase gratitude and psychological well-being more generally (Davis et al., 2016). A simple practice is to write down or share with a partner three things one is grateful for once a week. Savoring and Recognizing the Good Savoring is the capacity to attend to, appreciate, and enhance positive experiences in one’s life (Bryant and Veroff, 2007). It can include thinking about positive events, noticing what is good in the present, becoming more attentive to a positive experience, or sharing and celebrating something good. Evidence from meta-analyses of randomized savoring intervention studies suggests modest effects on increasing happiness and life satisfaction (Smith et al., 2014). In one experiment, participants were asked to take a 20-minute walk each day for one week. Some were also instructed to notice as many positive things around them as possible. Those who noticed what was good around them reported higher happiness at the end of the study (Bryant and Veroff, 2007). Because savoring is simple and can be practiced throughout the day, it is an accessible way to enhance well-being. Imagining One’s Best Possible Self Some research suggests that imagining and writing about one’s best possible self can increase aspects of well-being (King, 2001; Boehm, Lyubomirsky, and Sheldon, 2011; Layous, Nelson, and Lyubomirsky, 2013). The exercise typically asks people to imagine that life in the future has gone as well as it possibly could, that they have worked hard and accomplished their goals, and then to write about what they imagined. This can include family, friends, career, health, hobbies, goals, character, and other areas of life. Evidence from small randomized trials suggests positive effects on happiness and life satisfaction, optimism, and possibly health. A meta-analysis of 10 trials also found effects on increasing optimism (Malouff and Schutte, 2017). The exercise may be strengthened by writing about goals, plans, and actions that could help one move toward the envisioned future. Zolo Palugyay, Red Flowers Behaviors You Can Change Behavioral activities can also enhance well-being. These include using one’s character strengths, carrying out acts of kindness, and volunteering. These activities are oriented toward what is good in oneself, what is good for others, and what is good for the community. Use of Character Strengths There is some quantitative evidence that the exercise of virtue can contribute to greater happiness. One intervention asks people to identify their five central character strengths and then use one of these strengths in a new way every day for one week. In a randomized trial, those assigned to do this had higher happiness and lower depressive symptoms, even six months later (Seligman et al., 2005). A meta-analysis across nine trials found similar effects on happiness and life satisfaction (Schutte and Malouff, 2019). Try the VIA Survey of Character Strengths, which is freely available to everyone. Acts of Kindness Acts of kindness can increase the well-being of others and may also increase one’s own well-being. A few small randomized trials suggest that carrying out several acts of kindness each week over several weeks can increase happiness and life satisfaction, and make one feel more engaged, less anxious, and more connected (Buchanan and Bardi, 2010; Ouweneel, Le Blanc, and Schaufeli, 2014; Kerr, O’Donovan, and Pepping, 2015). There is preliminary evidence that doing five acts of kindness on a single day, once per week for six weeks, may affect well-being more powerfully than spreading those acts throughout the week (Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, and Schkade, 2005). A meta-analysis across 27 trials found effects on happiness and positive emotions (Curry et al., 2018). Acts of kindness may also encourage others to act kindly, allowing kindness to continue to spread (Fowler and Christakis, 2010; Jordan, Rand, Arbesman, Fowler, and Christakis, 2013; Chancellor, Margolis, and Lyubomirsky, 2018). Volunteering Volunteering can be understood as a commitment to repeated acts of kindness directed toward the life of a community. Volunteer organizations can also provide social connection and common purpose. Observational studies, meta-analyses, and some small randomized trials suggest that those regularly engaged in volunteering tend to be happier, have more social activities, have better physical and mental health, and live longer (Okun, Yeung, and Brown, 2013; Anderson et al., 2014; Pool, Agyemang, and Smalbrugge, 2017; Post, 2017). One study found that adolescents assigned to 10 weeks of volunteer activity had better cardiovascular health markers at follow-up (Schreier, Schonert-Reichl, and Chen 2013). Another found that older adults assigned to help young children for 15 hours a week for one year had higher self-reported generativity during follow-up (Gruenewald et al., 2016). Hugo Simberg, In the Studio Relational and Institutional Practices Some relational and institutional commitments can substantially contribute to human flourishing, if and when participation in them is appropriate. These include, but are not limited to, work, marriage, and religious community. Many of these commitments cannot be randomized, but they have been studied in rigorous observational research. Job Crafting Work involves joining others in contributing to meeting the needs and desires of human society. Research suggests that the decision to work improves life satisfaction, mental and physical health, and relationship satisfaction, while the loss of a job, on average, impairs these outcomes (McKee-Ryan, Song, Wanberg, and Kinicki, 2005; VanderWeele, 2017a; Paul and Moser, 2009). Job crafting is an approach to making work better by reflecting on one’s work and taking action to: structure tasks more effectively, improve social relationships at work, and find meaning and purpose in the work being done (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). Longitudinal studies and meta-analysis suggest that job crafting increases work engagement and performance and may also affect meaning in work and psychological well-being (Frederick and VanderWeele, 2018). Religious Service Attendance A considerable body of research suggests that religious service attendance affects health and other aspects of flourishing, including meaning in life, character, and close social relationships (Koenig, King, and Carson, 2012; Li et al., 2016ab; VanderWeele et al., 2016, 2017; VanderWeele, 2017abc). Research has indicated that those who attend religious services at least weekly are about 30% less likely to die over a 10- to 20-year follow-up, about 30% less likely to become depressed, and over five times less likely to commit suicide (Chida et al., 2009; Li et al., 2016ab; VanderWeele et al., 2016). This evidence comes from observational data, not randomized trials. However, even using very rigorous methodology, taking into account whether changes in attendance precede health or vice versa, the associations between religious service attendance and better mental and physical health appear to be robust. For those who already positively identify with a religious tradition, attending services could be encouraged as a meaningful form of social participation that is central to most religious groups and that also affects numerous aspects of human flourishing. Marriage and Relationship Quality Marriage and relationship quality are important determinants of happiness and many other aspects of human flourishing for spouses and children (Waite and Gallagher, 2000; Wilcox et al., 2011; VanderWeele, 2017a). Evidence from longitudinal studies suggests that marriage, compared with being single or cohabiting, is associated with better physical health, greater happiness and life satisfaction, less depression, more meaning in life, greater financial stability, and closer relationships (Marks and Lambert, 1998; Waite and Gallagher, 2000; Wilson and Oswald, 2005; Kaplan and Kronick, 2006; Manzoli, Villari, Pirone, and Boccia, 2007; Wood, Goesling, and Avellar, 2007; Wilcox et al., 2011). Marriage may not be the right decision for everyone, and studying its effects is difficult because people who marry may differ from those who do not. Still, the evidence suggests that the commitment of marriage itself may contribute to flourishing. Research also indicates that divorce is associated longitudinally with poorer mental and physical health, lower happiness, lower purpose in life, poorer relationship quality, poorer outcomes for children, and greater poverty for children and mothers (Marks and Lambert, 1998; Waite and Gallagher, 2000; Wilcox et al., 2011). In cases of infidelity or abuse, decisions about divorce or staying married are especially difficult. Efforts to improve communication and relationship quality before relationships deteriorate may benefit spouses and children. Maxime Maufra, Bay of Douarnenez Ways to Address Psychological Distress Some books and workbooks can help address psychological distress. The examples below concern depression, anxiety, and forgiveness. These resources are not substitutes for professional care when professional care is needed. Depression Recovery Depression is one of the most common mental health issues. Cognitive behavioral therapy has been shown to be effective in alleviating depression in randomized trials (Cuijpers, Cristea, Karyotaki, Reijnders, and Huibers, 2016). The principles of cognitive behavioral therapy have also been used in self-help books. Feeling Good by David Burns has been tested in several randomized trials, and a meta-analysis indicated that use of the book has considerable effects on alleviating depression (Anderson et al., 2005). The book is not a substitute for a trained therapist, and severe depression should be addressed with professional help. Existing evidence suggests it may help alleviate milder depressive symptoms. Anxiety Recovery Cognitive behavioral therapy interventions have also been developed to treat anxiety, and many have been found effective in randomized trials (Cuijpers et al., 2016). Self-help, workbook, computer-based, and internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy interventions have also been shown to help alleviate anxiety, and in some contexts are almost as effective as face-to-face cognitive behavioral therapy (Haug, Nordgreen, Öst, and Havik, 2012). A popular self-help book on cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety, Mastery of Your Anxiety and Panic by Barlow and Craske (2007), was evaluated in one very small randomized trial. Its use on its own was found to be nearly as effective as use of the book complemented by in-person sessions with a therapist (Hecker, Loses, Fritzler, and Fink, 1996). Further randomized trial evidence would be desirable. Anxiety disorders should be addressed with the help of a professional. Forgiveness Research indicates that forgiving others for wrongs they have done is generally associated with better mental health, greater hope, and possibly better physical health (Wade, Hoyt, Kidwell, and Worthington, 2014; Toussaint et al., 2015; VanderWeele, 2018). Forgiveness, understood as replacing ill-will with good-will toward the offender, is different from condoning, reconciling, or not demanding justice. One can forgive while still pursuing a just outcome. Forgiveness interventions have been shown in randomized trials to increase forgiveness, decrease depression and anxiety, and increase hope (Wade et al., 2014). Most require a therapist or counselor, but a workbook intervention has been shown to be effective in a small randomized trial (Harper et al., 2014). Learn more about the Human Flourishing Program's Global Forgiveness Movement. George Catlin, Landscape Conclusion The research summarized here suggests that flourishing can be supported through simple activities and meaningful commitments: gratitude, savoring, imagining one’s best possible self, using character strengths, practicing kindness, volunteering, shaping work in more meaningful ways, participating in appropriate relational and institutional commitments, and using evidence-based resources for psychological distress. These practices are not the whole of flourishing, and they do not replace professional care when needed. But the evidence suggests that they can help promote important aspects of well-being, including happiness and life satisfaction, mental and physical health, meaning and purpose, character and virtue, and close social relationships. Receive Tyler's monthly insight and research updates from the Human Flourishing Program team. References Anderson, L., Lewis, G., Araya, R., Elgie, R., Harrison, G., Proudfoot, J., Schmidt, U., Sharp, D., Weightman, A., Williams, C. (2005). Self-help books for depression: how can practitioners and patients make the right choice? British Journal of General Practice 55:387-392. Anderson, N.D., Damianakis, T., Kröger, E., Wagner, L.M., Dawson, D.R., Binns, M.A., Bernstein, S., Caspi, E., Cook, S.L. and the BRAVO Team. (2014). The benefits associated with volunteering among seniors: a critical review and recommendations for future research. Psychological Bulletin, 140:1505-1533. Barlow, D.H. and Craske M.G. (2007). Mastery of Your Anxiety and Panic. 4th Edition. Oxford University Press: New York. Boehm, J.K., Lyubomirsky, S., and Sheldon, K.M. (2011) A longitudinal experimental study comparing the effectiveness of happiness-enhancing strategies in Anglo Americans and Asian Americans. Cognition & Emotion, 25:7, 1263-1272. Bryant, F.B. and Veroff, J. (2007): Savoring: A New Model of Positive Experiences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ. Call, V., and Heaton, T. (1997). Religious Influence on Marital Stability. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36:382-392. Carlbring, P., Westling, B.E., and Andersson, G. (2000). A review of published self-help books for panic disorder. Scandinavian Journal of Behaviour Therapy, 29:5-13. Chancellor, J., Margolis, S., and Lyubomirsky, S. (2018) The propagation of everyday prosociality in the workplace. Journal of Positive Psychology, 13:271-283. Clum, G.A. (1990). Coping With Panic: A Drug-Free Approach to Dealing With Anxiety Attacks Brooks/Cole Publishing. Cuijpers, P., Cristea, I.A., Karyotaki, E., Reijnders, M., Huibers, M.J. (2016). How effective are cognitive behavior therapies for major depression and anxiety disorders? A meta-analytic update of the evidence. World Psychiatry, 15:245-258. Curry, O. S., Rowland, L. A., Van Lissa, C. J., Zlotowitz, S., McAlaney, J., & Whitehouse, H. (2018). Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76:320–329. Davis, D.E., Choe, E., Meyers, J., Wade, N., Varjas, K., Gifford, A., Quinn, A., Hook, J.N., Van Tongeren, D.R., Griffin, B.J., and Worthington, E.L. (2016). Thankful for the little things: a meta-analysis of gratitude interventions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63:20-31. Doss, B.D., Cicila, L.N., Georgia, E.J., Roddy, M.K., Nowlan, K.M., Benson, L.A., and Christensen, A. (2016). A randomized controlled trial of the web-based OurRelationship program: Effects on relationship and individual functioning. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 84:285-296. Fowler, J.H., and Christakis, N.A. (2010). Cooperative behavior cascades in human social network. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107:5334-5338. Ellison, C.G., Burdette, A.M., and Wilcox, W.B. (2010). The couple that prays together: race and ethnicity, religion, and relationship quality among working-age adults. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72:963-975. Emmons, R.A., and McCullough, M.E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 377-389. Frederick, D.E. and VanderWeele, T.J. (2018). A meta-analysis of the association of job-crafting and work engagement. Preprint available at: https://osf.io/2xtk3/. Techical Report. Harper, Q., Worthington, E.L., Griffin, B.J., Lavelock, C.R., Hook, J.N., Vrana, S.R., and Greer, C.L. (2014). Efficacy of a workbook to promote forgiveness: a randomized controlled trial with university students. Journal of Clinical Psychology 70:1158–1169. Haug, T., Nordgreen, T., Öst, L.G., and Havik, O.E. (2012). Self-help treatment of anxiety disorders: A meta-analysis and meta-regression of effects and potential moderators. Clinical Psychology Review 32:425-445. Hecker, J.E., Loses, M.C., Fritzler, B.K., Fink, C.M. (1996). Self-directed versus therapist-directed cognitive behavioral treatment for panic disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders 10:253-265. Hendriks, T., Schotanus-Dijkstra, M., Hassankhan, A., de Jong, J., & Bohlmeijer, E. (2019). The efficacy of multi-component positive psychology interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1-34. Published Online 11 February 2019; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00082-1 Jordan, J.J., Rand, D.G., Arbesman, S., Fowler, J.H., and Christakis, N.A. (2013). Contagion of cooperation in static and fluid social networks. PLoS One, 8(6):e66199. Kaplan, R. M. & Kronick, R. G. (2006). Marital Status and Longevity in the United States Population. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60,760-765. Kerr, S.L., O’Donovan, A., and Pepping, C.A. (2015). Can gratitude and kindness interventions enhance well-being in a clinical sample? Journal of Happiness Studies 16:17–36. King, L.A. (2001). The health benefits of writing about life goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27:798-807. Lambert, N.M., Fincham, F.D., Lavallee, D.C., and Brantley, C.W. (2012). Praying together and staying together: couple prayer and trust. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. 4:1-9. Layous, K., Katherine Nelson, S., and Lyubomirsky, S. (2013). What is the optimal way to deliver a positive activity intervention? The case of writing about one's best possible selves. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14:635-654. Li, S., Okereke, O.I., Chang, S.-C., Kawachi, I., and VanderWeele, T.J. (2016a). Religious service attendance and depression among women – a prospective cohort study. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 50:876-884. Li, S., Stamfer, M., Williams, D.R. and VanderWeele, T.J. (2016b). Association between religious service attendance and mortality among women. JAMA Internal Medicine, 2016;176(6):777-785. Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K.M., and Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: the architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9:111-131. Malouff, J. M. & Schutte, N. S. (2017). Can psychological interventions increase optimism? A meta-analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(6),594-604. Manzoli, L., Villari, P., Pirone, G. M., & Boccia, A. (2007). Marital Status and Mortality in the Elderly: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 64,77-94. Marks, N.F. and Lambert, J.D. (1998). Marital status continuity and change among young and midlife adults longitudinal effects on psychological well-being. Journal of Family Issues, 19:652-686. Martín-María, N., Miret, M., Caballero, F. F., Rico-Uribe, L. A., Steptoe, A., Chatterji, S., & Ayuso-Mateos, J. L. (2017). The impact of subjective well-being on mortality: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies in the general population. Psychosomatic Medicine, 79(5),565-575. McKee-Ryan, F., Song, Z., Wanberg, C. R., & Kinicki, A. J. (2005) Psychological and physical well-being during unemployment: A meta-analytic study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,53–76. Okun, M. A., Yeung, E. W., & Brown, S. (2013). Volunteering by older adults and risk of mortality: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 28(2),564-577. Ouweneel, E., Le Blanc, P.M., and Schaufeli, W.B. (2014). On being grateful and kind: results of two randomized controlled trials on study-related emotions and academic engagement. The Journal of Psychology, 148:37-60. Paul, K. I., & Moser, K. (2009) Unemployment impairs mental health: Meta-analyses. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74,264–282. Peters, M.L., Meevissen, Y.M.C., and Hanssen M.M. (2013). Specificity of the Best Possible Self intervention for increasing optimism: Comparison with a gratitude intervention. Terapia Psicológica, 31(1):93-100. Pool, M.S., Agyemang, C.O., and Smalbrugge, M. (2017). Interventions to improve social determinants of health among elderly ethnic minority groups: a review. The European Journal of Public Health, 27:1048-1054. Post, S.G. (2017). Rx It's good to be good (G2BG) 2017 commentary: prescribing volunteerism for health, happiness, resilience, and longevity. American Journal of Health Promotion 31:164-172. Schutte, N. S., & Malouff, J. M. (2019). The impact of signature character strengths interventions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(4),1179-1196. Seligman, M.E.P., Steen, T.A., Park, N., and Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60:410–421. Sin, N. L. & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms with positive psychology interventions: a practice-friendly meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology: In Session, 65(5),467-487. Smith, J.L., Harrison, P.R., Kurtz, J.L., and Bryan, F.B. (2014). Nurturing the capacity to savor: interventions to enhance the enjoyment of positive experiences. In: A.C. Parks and S.M. Schueller (eds.). The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Positive Psychological Interventions. John Wiley and Sons: West Sussex, U.K. p. 42-65. VanderWeele, T.J., Li, S., Tsai, A., and Kawachi, I. (2016a). Association between religious service attendance and lower suicide rates among US women. JAMA Psychiatry, 73:845-851. VanderWeele, T.J., Yu, J., Cozier, Y.C., Wise, L., Argentieri, M.A., Rosenberg, L., Palmer, J.R., and Shields, A.E. (2017). Religious service attendance, prayer, religious coping, and religious-spiritual identity as predictors of all-cause mortality in the Black Women’s Health Study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 185:515-522. VanderWeele, T.J. (2017). Religion and health: a synthesis. In: Balboni, M.J. and Peteet, J.R. (eds.). Spirituality and Religion within the Culture of Medicine: From Evidence to Practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, p 357-401. Wade, N.G., Hoyt, W.T., Kidwell, J.E., and Worthington E.L. (2014). Efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions to promote forgiveness: a meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82:154-170. Waite, L.J. and Gallagher, M. (2000). The Case for Marriage. New York: Doubleday. Wilcox, W.B. (2011). Why Marriage Matters: 30 Conclusions from the Social Sciences. 3rd Edition. New York: Institute for American Values/National Marriage Project. Wilcox, W.B., and Wolfinger, N.H. (2016). Soul Mates: Religion, Sex, Love, and Marriage among African Americans and Latinos. New York: Oxford University Press. Wilson, C. M., & Oswald, A. J. (2005). How Does Marriage Affect Physical and Psychological Health? A Survey of the Longitudinal Evidence. IZA Bonn Discussion Paper No. 1619. The Institute for the Study of Labor. Wood, R. G., Goesling, B., & Avellar, S. (2007). The Effects of Marriage on Health: A Synthesis of Recent Research Evidence. Mathematica Policy Research Inc. Wrzesniewski, A. and Dutton, J.E. (2001). Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26:179-201.

Overall flourishing includes meaning, character, and relationships. By Tyler J. VanderWeele Ph.D. Key points We need to pursue economic development and well-being promotion simultaneously. Measurement of well-being can help inform research, practice, and policy. We need global expansion of measures of meaning, relationships, and character. Receive Tyler's monthly insight and research updates from the Human Flourishing Program team. One of the key insights from the Global Flourishing Study has been that while overall life evaluation and financial security are higher in high-income countries, other aspects of well-being, such as meaning, pro-social character, and relationships, are often higher in middle-income countries. This leads to critical questions as to how we can carry out economic development without compromising meaning, character, and relationships. One important, albeit challenging, step in this regard would be to measure such aspects of well-being on a truly global basis. Eudaimonia Notions of character have been central to understandings of well-being across time and traditions. In Western contexts, Aristotle—often cited but sometimes misinterpreted in the contemporary well-being literature—conceived of “flourishing” or “eudaimonia” as consisting centrally, but not exclusively, in action in accord with virtue. However, the importance of notions of character and virtues can be seen across philosophical, cultural, and religious traditions. Good character is constitutive of, and helps promote flourishing of oneself and others; though measurement, of course, is not straightforward. In assessment efforts on well-being, a distinction is sometimes drawn between so-called “eudaimonic” approaches, focused more on fulfilling human potential, and hedonic or evaluative approaches, focused either on how happy or unhappy one feels, or on cognitive evaluations of one’s life or how satisfied one is with it. In the contemporary psychology literature, Carol Ryff argued for the distinction and put forward a eudaimonic understanding of psychological well-being grounded in notions of purpose, personal growth, self-acceptance, positive relations, autonomy, and environmental mastery; and others have followed her. Both aspects of well-being are arguably important, and both should be assessed. However, what one assesses will depend on the context and the resources available. In some contexts, only a single-item assessment will be possible; in others, much more extensive measures may be desirable. Practical Assessment In thinking about well-being and in identifying the strengths and areas for growth of individuals and communities, to see who needs help and in what ways, data collection is essential. Measurement can also give rise to research insights that are important for policy and practice. For example, feeling like an outsider growing up is unsurprisingly related to overall lower life evaluation in adulthood, but has even more profound effects on happiness and life satisfaction. Or with regard to meaning, we find consistently across countries that childhood religious service attendance can powerfully give rise to a sense of meaning in adulthood. Or concerning relationships, while in most countries women reported higher relationship quality than men, in Kenya, the pattern is reversed. Or concerning character, while childhood adversity mostly uniformly predicts poorer outcomes, volunteering and charitable giving are among the few outcomes where there appear to be beneficial relationships, suggesting some capacity for personal growth amidst adversity. Such insights help us understand the distribution of well-being, and what might be done to promote it. Looking Ahead Later this year, we are intending to launch an annual nationally representative data collection in the United States on numerous aspects of flourishing, including assessments of national community well-being, and also love (love of neighbor and of enemy), to create a State of the Nation Flourishing Report. Many institutions are coming together to expand quantitative data collection efforts to include questions on life satisfaction, meaning, character, relationships, love, and others. A recent meeting at the Vatican called for such coordinated, spiritually richer assessment efforts, and this would be an important step forward in that regard. With better measurement, policy, and collaboration, we can advance flourishing and the development of the whole person and the whole of society. Receive Tyler's monthly insight and research updates from the Human Flourishing Program team. References Symons, X., & VanderWeele, T. (2024). Aristotelian flourishing and contemporary philosophical theories of wellbeing. Journal of Happiness Studies, 25(1), 26. VanderWeele, T.J., Johnson, B.R., et al. (2025). The Global Flourishing Study: Study profile and initial results on flourishing. Nature Mental Health, 3(6), 636-653.

Short-term relief from loneliness may cause harm. By Tyler J. VanderWeele Ph.D. Key points In developing and engaging with AI, we need to evaluate its effects on flourishing. AI relational chatbots hamper our capacity for relationships and should be eliminated. We are social creatures and need real relationships. We cannot outsource our reason, relationships, meaning, and joy and expect to flourish. Receive Tyler's monthly insight and research updates from the Human Flourishing Program team. Artificial intelligence technologies have been rapidly rising. Their potential applications are extraordinary, from information synthesis to robotic surgery, statistical analysis, civil engineering, and more. By leveraging and re-packaging vast quantities of existing knowledge, they seem to open endless possibilities for their use, but also for abuse. Like any tool, AI can be used for good or for ill. If these technologies are to enhance human flourishing, rather than impede it, then we need to consider whether the design of AI technologies and our engagement with them are oriented towards our own flourishing. Of particular concern is how our use of these technologies is affecting our capacities for reason, for relationship, for transcendence, which go to the heart of our human nature. Are we finding a greater fulfilment through these tools? Or do they threaten to diminish and constrict our lives? A Flourishing Lens In a recent paper from the Human Flourishing Program at Harvard published in the journal Information, we have put forward a set of Flourishing Considerations for AI, discussing how a “flourishing lens” can guide decisions on the design and use of AI technologies related to: (i) the type of output provided; (ii) the specific AI product design; (iii) our engagement with those products; the effects this is having on (iv) human knowledge; and on (v) the self-realization of the human person. We’ve made use of our general framework for conceptualizing and assessing human flourishing, oriented around six domains: happiness, health, meaning, character, relationships, and financial resources. We argue in our new paper that whenever an AI product is developed, and whenever we are deciding whether to use it, we should consider how it will affect our happiness, health, meaning, character, relationships, and financial security, among other aspects of a good life. If the effect on some of these outcomes is likely detrimental, developers should consider whether it can be redesigned to mitigate these negative effects. Whenever it is clear that our own use would have negative effects on these outcomes, we should question whether we would be better off without it. Respecting and Fulfilling Human Nature Of particular concern is what these technologies might be doing to our nature as human persons. For instance, there is evidence that substantial use of AI tools such as “large language models” (LLMs) can hinder users’ cognitive abilities. If we become weaker in our reasoning, we are flourishing less, not more, as human persons. Given that LLMs also get things wrong (so-called “AI hallucinations”), we should not place any absolute reliance on them or their products as sources of knowledge. They might be helpful in searches or in pointing us to relevant source material. However, knowledge fundamentally requires justified true beliefs, the justifying evidence that cannot be overturned. Evaluating evidence and searching for truth are fundamentally human activities. AI technologies may require a yet greater (not lesser) scrutiny of evidence than before if the web of human knowledge is not to be damaged. Perhaps of yet greater concern is the potential effect of AI technologies on human relationships and our capacity to love. Various studies have indicated that roughly one-third or more of American teenagers are using AI agents for companionship, as friends, or romantic partners. While these might sometimes temporarily alleviate loneliness, the longer-term effects on flourishing are likely detrimental. They decrease the motivation and time available for engaging in face-to-face interactions. Furthermore, because AI chatbots are designed to be exceedingly agreeable and supportive, they also create unrealistic expectations as to the sort of interactions, sympathy, and comfort one may hope for in a real romantic partner or a friendship. They thereby also alter the broader social environment and our capacities to engage with one another. When our capacities to engage in real relationships are weakened, we are flourishing less, not more. Certainly, there are cases in which AI chatbot applications can be helpful, from user-tailored educational opportunities (perhaps replacing Massive Open Online Courses – MOOCs) to skill-building programs for autistic children, to civil discourse training for college students. However, in each of these cases, the technologies should ultimately point us back to real human relationships. A human teacher, for example, not only helps in acquiring knowledge, but also in forming the whole person, in modeling the integration of knowledge into life and emotion, and in developing capacities for mutual understanding. Such considerations as to the effects of AI technologies on human fulfillment also pertain to our artistic pursuits, our experience of beauty, and our search for meaning and purpose in life. Ultimately, we cannot outsource our meaning and our joy in relationships, our freedom and our responsibility, our reasoning and our understanding, our appreciation of beauty and our capacity for awe and wonder, or, in total, our flourishing, to technology. These things are a part of what it means to be human. Practical Next Steps Navigating all of this can undoubtedly be challenging. To help address these matters, we have recently launched a Flourishing and AI Initiative. We need to develop practical wisdom to determine which uses are beneficial and which are not. We should work together as individuals, as parents, and as communities, to develop the discipline needed to choose not to make use of these technologies when they are going to impede our flourishing. When we use AI technologies, we should ask ourselves how we might carry out such tasks better ourselves, to enhance our minds, not weaken them. We should limit use to ensure sufficient time to be with other people and in communities. We should continually question, with each use, whether it is enhancing or inhibiting our capacities as human persons. These flourishing considerations also have implications for developers. Developers of AI technologies using chatbot interfaces should ensure they provide regular reminders that they are not human; that their outputs might be wrong; and that users might want to consider alternative activities or in-person human interactions. This could all be implemented immediately, with all AI chatbot products, and could considerably improve users’ decision-making. Moreover, as noted above, while some chatbot products may indeed be beneficial, we believe developers should entirely discontinue the development of relational chatbots given the negative long-term effects these likely will have on human relationships. The detrimental effects of social media on youth flourishing may be only the tip of the iceberg if AI companions replace real relationships. Developers should ultimately spend their effort on designing products that will more likely have unambiguously beneficial or neutral effects on flourishing, and prioritize those over products that might be more mixed or detrimental, even if profitable. The development and promotion of these products carry with them moral commitments and responsibilities. We should hold developers morally and legally accountable for the foreseeable harms their products bring to users and society. While any new technology comes with new opportunities and new challenges, including those that may affect possibilities for human fulfillment, the potential for AI technologies to severely alter, damage, and replace relationships is arguably unprecedented. We need to take these matters seriously if we are to flourish. The use of a flourishing lens in evaluating AI technologies is essential. Receive Tyler's monthly insight and research updates from the Human Flourishing Program team. References VanderWeele, T.J. and Teubner J.D. (2026). Flourishing considerations for AI. Information, 17:88. Reconnecting Our Communities. Psychology Today. Human Flourishing Blog. December 2025. Meaning in Life and Human Flourishing. Psychology Today. Human Flourishing Blog. February 2025. A Theology of Health and Human Flourishing. Psychology Today. Human Flourishing Blog. October 2024. Better Together: How We Can Build Connected Communities. Psychology Today. Human Flourishing Blog. September 2023.

Ongoing research helps uncover clues as to what shapes meaning in life. By Tyler J. VanderWeele Ph.D. Receive Tyler's monthly insight and research updates from the Human Flourishing Program team. Happy New Year from the Human Flourishing Program! One of the ongoing research projects of the Human Flourishing Program at Harvard is to understand better what gives rise to a sense of meaning and purpose in life. With the new year dawning, and New Year’s resolutions in place, or perhaps still being formed, it seemed a good time to have an update on our research on this topic. There has been recent increased interest in meaning and purpose. For example, a group of researchers at the University of Michigan published a paper last year that indicated there were considerable longevity benefits to having a sense of purpose in life for adults above age 50, and this study created a substantial media buzz. Our own research on the topic was published last year in the American Journal of Epidemiology. We examined the role that having a sense of purpose played among 6,000 young adults in the Growing Up Today Study (GUTS) by investigating those who affirmed having experienced a sense of mission in life. The participants were assessed in adolescence and followed up for six years into early adulthood. We wondered whether and how having such a sense of mission would affect other aspects of health and well-being. What we discovered about purpose As in previous analyses, our study controlled for a rich set of other potentially confounding factors, including numerous social, demographic, and economic characteristics, parental variables, including maternal attachment, participation in religious services, and also prior values of the outcome variables whenever available. Even after such control, there was evidence that, over time, a sense of mission subsequently improved flourishing in numerous domains, including happiness and psychological well-being (e.g., life satisfaction, positive affect, self-esteem, emotional processing, and emotional expression), promotion of physical health (greater use of preventive health care), possibly mental health (fewer depressive symptoms), and character (more volunteering). Although we did not find associations with specific physical health outcomes in our study, it must be remembered that this was a relatively young group of participants (essentially in their 20s during the study follow-up), and major health problems usually begin later in life. And again, prior research from the group at the University of Michigan indicated substantial health benefits (greater longevity) among older adults. Clearly, having a sense of purpose matters. It matters for its own sake, and it matters for affecting other aspects of health and well-being. What gives rise to a sense of meaning and purpose? Remarkably little longitudinal research over time has been carried out on this question of what actually shapes meaning and purpose in life. Our program is trying to remedy that. In our analyses with the Growing Up Today Study, we found that religious service attendance, maternal attachment, and volunteering during late childhood were among the strongest predictors of subsequently having a higher sense of purpose during adolescence; marijuana use and depression tended to lead subsequently to lower levels of purpose. Although there is certainly a need for replication in other settings, these initial analyses may help provide guidance for parents trying to shape a sense of mission and purpose for their children. At the policy level, many of the debates around marijuana legalization have focused on questions of health effects, but perhaps issues concerning the formation of purpose in life should come into play as well. Some of our current research is also examining similar associations concerning the determinants of purpose among older adults. What we have found thus far is that purpose in life seems to be somewhat less malleable later in life than it is in adolescence and young adulthood. Although we will report more fully when our research papers are out, it seems that volunteering, in particular, has one of the largest effects on increasing purpose in life among middle-aged and older adults. But we still have more work to do. It is clear that more research needs to be done on this important topic. Almost everyone desires to have a sense of meaning and purpose in life. The fact that we know so little, at least empirically, about what gives rise to such meaning and purpose is truly remarkable. A New Measurement Tool To facilitate a more careful study of the determinants of meaning and purpose, we recently introduced a new measurement tool: the Comprehensive Measure of Meaning. This measure is intended to incorporate important philosophical insights into existing psychological approaches that suggest meaning is experienced along three dimensions: cognitive coherence (having a sense of the “meaning of life”), affective significance (having a sense of “meaning in life” in one’s activities), and motivational direction or purpose (having important goals and pursuits). The Comprehensive Measure of Meaning makes use of a variety of items from previous scales, but it categorizes these in ways that are consistent with important distinctions in the philosophical literature. We have collected data concerning the measure on a sample of over 4,000 undergraduates at the University of British Columbia and are beginning to assess its psychometric properties and to incorporate it into other datasets as well. Its use by other researchers is also most welcome. We hope that by building these new data resources, we will, over time, come to a more comprehensive understanding of what gives rise to a sense of meaning and purpose in life. We will keep you updated. Receive Tyler's monthly insight and research updates from the Human Flourishing Program team. References Chen, Y., Kim, E.S., Koh, H.K., Frazier, A.L., and VanderWeele, T.J. (2019). Sense of mission and subsequent health and well-being among young adults: an outcome-wide analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology, 188(4):664-673. Hanson, J.A. and VanderWeele, T.J. (2020). The Comprehensive Measure of Meaning: psychological and philosophical foundations. In: M. Lee, L.D. Kubzansky, and T.J. VanderWeele (Eds.). Measuring Well-Being: Interdisciplinary Perspectives from the Social Sciences and the Humanities. Oxford University Press, forthcoming.

According to 55 studies, spirituality may mean lower rates of substance use. By Tyler J. VanderWeele Ph.D. Key points Spiritual engagement is associated with a 13 percent decrease in substance use over time. Participation in a religious community has an even larger effect, with an 18 percent reduction. Evidence now comes from the synthesis of the most rigorous longitudinal studies. We need to make use of spirituality and religious community as resources for healing. Receive Tyler's monthly insight and research updates from the Human Flourishing Program team. A Major Advance in Our Knowledge about Religion and Health While there have been many prior studies on spirituality and health and even many meta-analyses within the religion and health literature, most of these are relatively weak in design, employing cross-sectional data, collected only at one time point, which makes it difficult to determine what causes what. Does religious service attendance protect against smoking, or do those who smoke feel less comfortable attending religious services? To make these determinations, we need longitudinal data, gathered over time, though even with such data, we can only approach genuine knowledge about causation when the accumulated evidence, generally from multiple studies, is sufficiently strong and unambiguous to render any alternatives untenable. And as we’ve noted previously, achieving genuine knowledge about causal claims is also difficult because of the possibility that researchers are neglecting some additional “confounding” factor that explains the apparently causal relationship, or because of statistical uncertainty, or questions of generalizability, or biases that can creep into the research process. One approach to trying to address these challenges is meta-analysis, or the synthesis of previous studies on a particular topic. This still doesn’t solve all the issues since the results of such a synthesis are only as good as the quality of the studies that go into it. However, by restricting to the most rigorous studies—large, longitudinal in design, and with good control for confounding—one can begin to move towards stronger evidence. That is precisely what we did in our most recent study published in JAMA Psychiatry on the potential effects of religion and spirituality on substance use and abuse. Despite a very large literature in religion and health, to the best of our knowledge, there have only been two prior meta-analyses restricted to longitudinal studies: one on religiosity’s effects on all-cause mortality in 2009, and one on mental health in 2021. Both found important protective effects. Such meta-analyses of longitudinal studies constitute substantial undertakings and have only been occurring in the religion and health literature about once per decade. With generous support from the Templeton Religion Trust and the Lee Family Fund, our most recent study from the Human Flourishing Program at Harvard and the Initiative on Health, Spirituality, and Religion, led by our colleague Dr. Howard Koh, has extended such approaches yet further to examine the relationship between religion and spirituality with substance use and abuse. We drew upon a prior major review we had published in JAMA of the most rigorous 21st-century studies from 2000-2022, which were longitudinal in design and had sample sizes of at least 1000, or were randomized trials. We then synthesized the evidence from the 55 studies that met these criteria for their rigorous design. What We Found Overall, we found that among these various studies, spiritual or religious participation was associated with a 13 percent reduction over time in hazardous alcohol and other drug use. The strength of the effects seemed relatively similar across the different substances examined, namely alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and illicit drugs. There was certainly variation across studies and populations, but the majority indicated a reasonably large protective effect. There was some variation across different types of spiritual practices, with participation in religious communities (weekly service attendance) having the largest effect, with an 18 percent reduction in hazardous substance use on average. There was perhaps slight evidence that the effects of religious and spiritual participation on recovery were slightly larger than on prevention, though this was not entirely clear from the data. Overall, however, what was clear was that, in several settings, religious and spiritual participation lowered substance use and abuse. Because we were trying to move towards knowledge, not just provide additional evidence, we also considered numerous alternative possible explanations for the results, and used sensitivity analysis techniques to assess the possibility of a variety of biases. Restricting to large longitudinal studies with control for baseline outcome certainly helped in itself. Sensitivity analysis for potential unmeasured confounding indicated that this was unlikely to explain away the effect: an unmeasured confounder would essentially have to increase service attendance and decrease substance abuse by more than 50 percent each, above and beyond everything already controlled for, to explain things away. Sometimes “publication bias” can also be a concern, where only certain studies are published in the literature, and others never make it in. The various sensitivity analyses for such publication bias also suggested this could not explain things away, and even an analysis of the least favorable studies, when synthesized, suggested a protective effect. Evidence from a single study is rarely definitive, but here, when combining such evidence across a large number of the most rigorous studies, it becomes difficult to find any other explanation than that various forms of spirituality and religion have a protective effect on substance use. Nonetheless, we should still be cautious as to what it is that we actually know: most of these studies come from the Western world, so are not necessarily generalizable across cultures. Nor is the claim that religion and spirituality always have such protective effects. Rather, what we can say quite definitively is that in at least some contexts, certain spiritual practices and perhaps especially participation in religious communities decrease substance use and abuse. Implications The implications of these results need to be treated with some nuance. This does not constitute grounds for any sort of uniform prescription for religion. However, the results do point towards religion and spirituality as important resources in potentially preventing and recovering from substance abuse. These findings are of potential public health relevance. Large portions of our nation and of our world positively identify with a religious tradition. Clinicians, counselors, social workers, and others should be aware of these important resources and encourage them when appropriate. While a uniform prescription of religious service attendance for all is not warranted, when someone does positively self-identify with a religious tradition, it would, as we’ve argued elsewhere, generally be reasonable to encourage participation in a religious community as an important source of support and healing. For those who are not religious, other forms of community participation can be encouraged. Such encouragement can thus be done in a thoughtful, sensitive, and ethical manner. Religious communities can also often offer services for healing from issues of substance abuse, such as, for example, Alcoholics Anonymous programs, which prior evidence indicates have themselves been very effective. Many today find themselves trapped in patterns of substance abuse and addiction. The turbulent nature of life today, from bombardment by news and social media, to political challenges and polarization, to tumultuous global events, may render such challenges with substance use more severe. We need to draw upon the full range of the resources we have to provide healing and to support flourishing. Spirituality and religious communities can contribute in profound ways, and we should more often appreciate, make use of, and take their extraordinary potential seriously. Receive Tyler's monthly insight and research updates from the Human Flourishing Program team. References VanderWeele, T.J. and Teubner J.D. (2026). Flourishing considerations for AI. Information, 17:88. Reconnecting Our Communities. Psychology Today. Human Flourishing Blog. December 2025. Meaning in Life and Human Flourishing. Psychology Today. Human Flourishing Blog. February 2025. A Theology of Health and Human Flourishing. Psychology Today. Human Flourishing Blog. October 2024. Better Together: How We Can Build Connected Communities. Psychology Today. Human Flourishing Blog. September 2023.

Some neglected aspects of our epidemic of loneliness and isolation. By Tyler J. VanderWeele Ph.D. Key points Americans are less connected to one another than in the past. Policymakers have drawn attention to some important aspects of this crisis. We need more attention to the economic drivers of disconnection. Receive Tyler's monthly insight and research updates from the Human Flourishing Program team. Co-written by Brendan Case and Tyler VanderWeele. In May 2023, then-U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy published a public health advisory, describing "our epidemic of loneliness and isolation," and highlighting strategies for reducing it. He resumed this theme in his "Parting Prescription for America," in January 2025, shortly before his term ended. As he emphasizes, and as we've noted previously, social connection has important effects on mental and physical health both through its objective dimensions—the number of relationships and communities, the time we spend with them, and the material supports they offer—and through the subjective sense of connection and belonging, of being loved and cared for. An Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation Unfortunately, many aspects of social connectedness are in long-term decline in the United States. The Advisory notes that from 2003 to 2020, Americans’ self-reported time spent with friends and in social engagement decreased by two-thirds and one-third, respectively, while time spent in isolation increased by 17 percent. By some measures, half of Americans now report being lonely, with the highest proportions found among young people. Marriage and birth rates are at all-time lows, and religious affiliation and participation, and other forms of civic participation have declined steeply as well. This is cause for lament, but also represents a significant threat to public health, since social disconnection and loneliness predict increases in unhappiness, depression, anxiety, and even premature mortality. Murthy’s report offered a description of the current crisis—not least in stressing the critical role played by the overuse of smartphones and social media among young people—and proposed six “pillars” to structure public health responses to it, each of which is reasonable and important in its own right: (1) strengthening social infrastructure in local communities, (2) enacting pro-connection public policies, (3) mobilizing the health sector, (4) reforming digital environments, (5) deepening our knowledge, and (6) building a culture of connection. All of Murthy’s proposals are worth pursuing and could go a long way toward addressing contemporary social disaffiliation. Nonetheless, in a recently published paper, we at the Human Flourishing Program have also argued that the Surgeon General’s report does not address some of the epidemic’s key causes and most damaging aspects. Neglected Dimensions Economic factors are critical drivers of many aspects of social disaffiliation, but this received little attention in the Surgeon General’s Advisory. Fostering strong families, rich friendships, and deep participation in communal life are clearly affected by having adequate time for leisure and social life, financial stability, low levels of financial stress, and the dignity of socially valued work. In recent decades, each of these four foundational elements has been eroded, especially for Americans without college degrees, by stagnant or declining real median wages and the increase of low-skilled, “dead-end” jobs with unpredictable schedules and tenuous contracts. Communities with low-paying and erratically scheduled jobs will often struggle to foster stable families, clubs, civic associations, and religious communities. As Case and Deaton argue, “the loss of good jobs for less educated Americans” has triggered a cascade of social pathologies, amounting to “the slowly unfolding loss of a way of life,” which in turn partly explains the rising epidemic of “deaths of despair,” from suicide, drug overdoses, and alcohol abuse. We need to help these communities. Young people are America’s loneliest demographic, owing much to their screen time, but that is not the whole story. As Gray and Haidt have argued, there has been a decline in independent play in childhood. Play in which kids socialize with one another without adult direction is increasingly crowded out by the expansion of the school day, growth in adult-monitored extra-curricular activities, and increasingly anxious parenting keeping kids from unsupervised play. In 2020, for instance, high-school seniors “went out with friends” 1.9 times per week, down from 2.9 times in 1976. The Surgeon General’s advisory also understated the importance of declines in institutions such as religious communities and marriage. These are probably humanity’s oldest forms of community, present in nearly all societies, and consistently shown—not least in our own research—to have strong effects in promoting flourishing, and indeed to do so more strongly than other forms of belonging. Economic factors again may play a role in depressing family formation and religious participation, but there are a number of additional likely drivers of those trends. About half of Americans are religious by conviction but do not attend services. “Secular competition” from work, leisure activities, or children’s sports may partially play a role. Marriage rates have perhaps been depressed by the set of “marriage penalties” in federal and state means-tested welfare programs. Most Americans do still want to marry, and we need to find ways to enable this. Reconnecting Our Communities Addressing our epidemic of loneliness and isolation will require, beyond the helpful sixfold approach of the advisory, finding ways to revive the economic fortunes of less-educated Americans, to restore a greater measure of freedom and independence to the lives of young people, and to revitalize the critical institutions of religious community and marriage. Pro-community policies might include greater investment in technical and vocational education for high-schoolers or the promotion of worker cooperatives, the elimination of “marriage penalties” from welfare programs, or the revival by local jurisdictions of once-ubiquitous “Sunday-closing laws” (still quite common in Europe) to enable religious service attendance and provide all workers with a day of rest. Beyond public policy, however, we need a broader cultural and even spiritual reorientation to the good of community. Many of us instinctively turn to community during the holiday season, making extra efforts to spend time in celebration with family and friends. But what if we were to carry that commitment to the importance of being together past December? What if parents always took seriously the importance of independent and unstructured socializing for kids’ well-being? What if religious community were considered not only at Christmas-time but throughout the year? What if each of us made a deliberate effort to nourish loving relationships that might otherwise languish? May it be so during this holiday season...and beyond. Receive Tyler's monthly insight and research updates from the Human Flourishing Program team. References Case, B., Corbin, I. M., Ivey, R., Teubner, J., Bachiochi, E., Cowden, R., ... & VanderWeele, T. J. (2025). Reconnecting our communities: Social flourishing on the far side of “our epidemic of loneliness and isolation”. International Journal of Wellbeing, 15(4). Hong, J.H., Berkman, L.F., Chen, F.S., Shiba, K., Chen, Y., Kim, E.S., and VanderWeele, T.J. (2023). Are loneliness and social isolation equal threats to health and well-being? An outcome-wide longitudinal approach. Social Science and Medicine - Population Health, 23:101459. Hong, J.H., Nakamura, J., Sahakari, S., Chopik, W., Shiba, K., VanderWeele, T.J. and Kim, E. (2024). The silent epidemic of loneliness: identifying the antecedents of loneliness using a lagged exposure-wide approach. Psychological Medicine, 54:1519–1532.

Pathways to increasing diversity: We need each other to correct our thinking. By Tyler J. VanderWeele Ph.D. Key points Viewpoint diversity is a means in the pursuit of knowledge, not an end in itself. Ideological diversity in higher education in the US has declined dramatically in recent decades. Appropriate intellectual diversity is consistent with high scholarly standards. Properly understood, intellectual diversity assists in the pursuit of truth and flourishing. Receive Tyler's monthly insight and research updates from the Human Flourishing Program team. Refining Our Thinking “Iron sharpens iron,” as the proverb has it. This is nowhere truer than in the realm of ideas: we all need our initial beliefs or unreflective convictions to be refined. Serious reflection and study can, of course, help with this, but so also can having our ideas challenged by others. When we engage with people with different ideas, we come to understand our own positions better and our own reasons for believing what we do. We also come to understand other people better, and their reasons for holding the positions that they do. Sometimes we realize that we are wrong and change our thinking. Sometimes we can help other people change their thinking. Even when we still disagree, there can be a better sense of what we hold in common, and also a better sense of the reasons for our disagreements. These are just some of the potential benefits of interacting with people who have different beliefs from we do. Indeed, John Stuart Mill put all of this forward over 150 years ago, and it is as true today as it was then. In many ways, the university itself provides an ideal context for such discussions to take place, and this all aids us in our pursuit of truth. As our knowledge advances, we together come to better understand what ideas and approaches work, and which do not, and we are ideally thereby also enabled to flourish. Declining Viewpoint Diversity In the past decades, there has been concern expressed over an increasing lack of intellectual or viewpoint diversity within academic settings. It is sometimes argued that our academic contexts are now too dominated by liberal or progressive perspectives, and thus that viewpoint diversity and the free exchange of ideas have been stifled. For example, one recent paper tracked the liberal-to-conservative faculty ratio as changing from 2.3-to-1 in 1989 to 5-to-1 in 2017 to 7-to-1 today. Attention to these matters has been given in psychology, in law, and more generally, along with the potential implications. Claims have been made that conservatives are being discriminated against, that the environment has become too hostile, and that a culture of self-censorship has become dominant. There is, of course, a political dimension to these matters, but also an intellectual dimension. If we are not engaging with others with different perspectives, it can become easier to exist in our own echo chambers; it can be more difficult to understand others, to come up with new ideas, and to find common ground. Intellectual Diversity and Scholarly Standards Of course, what to do, if anything, about these matters, is complex. Academic disciplines pride themselves on their rigorous disciplinary standards and on their autonomy. Proposals to “force” viewpoint diversity can sometimes seem to compromise academic standards and the autonomy of academic institutions. In a paper recently published by the Human Flourishing Program, I put forward proposals to attempt to strengthen engagement with a diverse range of views while also preserving the scholarly standards and the relative autonomy of disciplines and departments. For example, instructors might try to ensure coverage of the range of views present in society, but also critically describe the best reasons for, and against, those views. If many people in society hold one view, and many others do not, then the strongest arguments for and against the view should be provided. Students can likewise, in essay writing or in debates, be asked to attempt to provide the strongest arguments for the positions they do not hold, before proceeding with their own positions or potential refutations. The scholastic practice of disputation—illustrated in, for example, Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae—required one to present the strongest arguments of the opposing view first, and such approaches could also be employed within classrooms today. While faculty and departments should arguably have control and decision-making power over which new faculty are to be hired on the grounds of the quality of their work, their capacity to teach, and the depth of their ideas, more effort could be made to hire in a wider variety of research areas that might increase the intellectual diversity of the faculty. The choice of research topics on which faculty hires are made may be one of the reasons for the seemingly shrinking ideological diversity of campuses. For example, much research and numerous faculty hires have been devoted to matters of workplace salary gender equality, and this is an important topic. However, it is also the case that roughly half of American families would prefer to have one parent who stays at home rather than in paid employment. The research literature and the number of faculty devoted to work on how to support such families are vastly underdeveloped in comparison. Faculty hires on this or analogous topics may lead to greater intellectual development among the faculty, and thus also in research and teaching. This would, in turn, provide students with exposure to a broader range of ideas, and would allow both students and faculty to better discern which ideas work well and which do not, to refine those ideas, to synthesize them, to find common ground, and to better work together to promote flourishing in society. Our increasingly polarized society has arguably in part resulted from a lack of interaction with others who hold different perspectives. Trying to understand others will help us work together towards common aims and to better understand and navigate our differences and disagreements. Religious Perspectives and Scholarly Discourse Much of the discussion on intellectual diversity is more political or ideological in nature. But these matters apply more broadly, for example, to the inclusion or exclusion of various religious perspectives. This is a complicated matter, especially in the context of a secular university. In pluralistic contexts, it is desirable to identify common forms of evidence and modes of reasoning. Presuppositions that come from faith commitments can complicate these matters. And yet there are arguably numerous ways in which religious perspectives could benefit scholarly discourse and our pursuit of truth together. Even in the context of a secular university, it is arguably reasonable to bring religious understandings of various concepts into discussion: for example, how justice, or truth, or goodness, or beauty, or love is understood across different religious traditions. It also seems entirely reasonable to carry out empirical research on the distribution and determinants of various religious beliefs and practices, and on the effects of religious community participation on subsequent outcomes and behaviors, both for individuals and with regard to society more broadly. It is reasonable to examine the logical consistency of different belief systems. It is reasonable to study the historical development of religions and their role in the historical development of society. Religious perspectives should arguably thus be welcome, but should also be subject to the same level of rational critique, the same questioning of grounds of belief, the same scrutiny on internal consistency, and the same requirements of dialogue with those of different perspectives as their secular counterparts. Through such work, the academy can also benefit from the intellectual diversity of religious perspectives, but conversely, religious communities can benefit from the scholarly rigor of academic work. As we’ve argued previously, social science research might well benefit from theological and philosophical perspectives, and theological and philosophical work can itself benefit from and be challenged by work in the sciences. All of this helps in the pursuit of knowledge and of truth. If we want to pursue a flourishing society, we need to engage with those around us who have other perspectives, to understand them, to learn from them, and to try, as best as possible, to work together. Receive Tyler's monthly insight and research updates from the Human Flourishing Program team. References VanderWeele, T.J. (2025). Intellectual and viewpoint diversity: importance, scope and bounds. Education Sciences, 15:1592. Case, B.W. and VanderWeele, T.J. (2024). Integrating the humanities and the social sciences: six approaches and case studies. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11:231. Better Together: Integrating the Sciences and Humanities. Psychology Today. Human Flourishing Blog. December 2024.

Love is a critical but understudied component of human flourishing. By Tyler J. VanderWeele Ph.D. Key points The experience of love is something everyone desires and everyone needs. Several streams of research suggest that promoting love would advance flourishing. We need more efforts to promote love in all sectors of society and policy. Receive Tyler's monthly insight and research updates from the Human Flourishing Program team. We all desire to be loved. We only fully flourish when we are loved. Being loved affirms our goodness as human persons. Our search for love shapes so many of our actions and pursuits. Some have even suggested that all of our reasons for action arise from love, and that all of our various emotions and passions are ultimately grounded in love. In spite of this universal desire for love, the topic is strangely absent from most academic work, and certainly largely absent from any discussions of social policy. There is a discrepancy between the centrality of love in our personal lives and its comparative absence in our public discourse. If we are to promote human flourishing adequately, we should seek to close this divide and to better promote love. Understanding Love At the Human Flourishing Program at Harvard, we recently published an article on love and human flourishing, trying precisely to make this case. We discuss the very notion of love, the centrality of love within the world’s religious traditions, and the sweeping claims sometimes made about love in disciplines ranging from philosophy to sociology, psychology, and even business management. We review various streams of empirical evidence that suggest that love plays a powerful role in the promotion of human flourishing, and we put forward potentially radical proposals for how love might play a central role in social policy. We ultimately argue that love has tremendous underutilized potential to enhance human flourishing. As we’ve noted previously, love might be understood as having both a unitive and a contributory component. The unitive component of love seeks union with the beloved person or object. The contributory component seeks the good of the beloved for its own sake. When we use the word “love” in ordinary language, either one or the other or both of these unitive or contributory components is present. In human relationships, however, we almost always desire both. That experience of being loved, and of loving, helps us to feel our value as persons. That someone wants to be with us, and that someone cares about our good, helps affirm who we are. Whether that love occurs in romantic relationships, in parent-child bonds, in friendship, or in our everyday interactions, love fulfills a fundamental part of who we are as persons. Love and Flourishing Being loved and loving are rightly desired for their own sake. However, love contributes to our flourishing in numerous other ways as well. While rigorous empirical studies of love are still comparatively rare, several streams of evidence, closely related to love, suggest powerful effects of love on human flourishing. Longitudinal studies on parenting, for instance, indicate that parental warmth or love over time helps develop greater psychological, emotional, and social well-being among children and reduces the likelihood of subsequent depression and drug use. Studies of marriage and relational quality within marriage indicate powerful, long-term, beneficial effects on health and well-being for both spouses. Studies of forgiveness, which might be viewed as a restoration of love—a replacement of ill-will with goodwill—following an offense, indicate important effects on lowering depression and anxiety, increasing hope, and improving flourishing. Randomized trials of compassion interventions likewise suggest powerful effects on well-being. And numerous longitudinal studies and even randomized trials of acts of kindness or volunteering, which can manifest love, similarly indicate important effects on health and well-being. While we are arguably in need of a more rigorous empirical study of love (an “epidemiology of love”), there is a lot that already suggests that love is critical for human flourishing. Love and Social Policy Given the powerful effects of love on human flourishing, love should be given a more prominent place in social policy as well. Given how many spheres of life potentially manifest love, the opportunities for fostering it are essentially limitless, whether this is within the context of close relationships or even our day-to-day interactions with others, through a “love of neighbor.” It is perhaps because of the very ubiquity of the opportunities to promote love that we neglect to do so. But that neglect ultimately hinders our own flourishing. More needs to be done. We need to regularly reinforce the importance of love in parent-child relationships; indeed, it may be the most important factor in successful parenting. We should promote love and acts of kindness within schools, and a universal respect for or love of one’s neighbor, to facilitate learning, formation, and lives of love. We should promote love within workplaces, both among employees and among business leaders, encouraging them to genuinely care for those they manage and to create a caring climate. We should promote love within medicine, which is not only about the provision of services, but also the provision of loving care. We should promote love within religious communities, where often there is a powerful formation in love of neighbor, which can then lead to important contributions to the common good of society as a whole. We should promote forgiveness within society, which helps to restore love and further promotes individual and social flourishing. We need to promote love—a love of neighbor and even love of enemy—in our communities and political life if we are to avoid increasing polarization and discord. We should arguably even ground our economic relations in what will allow for love and adequate time with one another in order to love. We need a more robust academic study of love to understand its distribution and determinants and to promote it. And we need to have our news media and social media interactions governed by love, pointing towards what is good, and not contributing to societal discord. All of this is needed if we are to promote love and to promote flourishing. The opportunities are almost endless, but so often is their neglect. Love of Neighbor Initiative Given the importance of love in our lives, in our society, and in our flourishing, we at the Human Flourishing Program are in the process of launching a new Love of Neighbor Initiative aimed at promoting love throughout society. We hope to build this initiative over the course of the next year to: 1. promote love in all different types of relationships—from parenting to schools to friendship to religious communities and beyond 2. begin nationally representative tracking of love of neighbor and love of enemy assessments to see how these are distributed throughout society and how they may be changing over time 3. encourage the promotion of love within public policy, and the recognition of love as a social determinant of health from institutions ranging from the World Health Organization to the American Psychiatric Association and the DSM, and elsewhere 4. support campaigns promoting a universal love of neighbor If you are interested in joining this work or supporting it financially, we would be delighted to hear from you. For a fuller human flourishing, we need to be striving towards love and towards what some have called a “civilization of love.” The research is compelling, and the policy and promotion opportunities are numerous. Let us seek together to better love one another. Receive Tyler's monthly insight and research updates from the Human Flourishing Program team. References VanderWeele, T.J. and Lee, M.T. (2025). Love and human flourishing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 15:4663.