Understanding the Global Flourishing Study: How to Interpret Cross-National Results
By Tyler J. VanderWeele, Byron R. Johnson, and Tim Lomas
Recent public discussions have drawn attention to country “rankings” in the Global Flourishing Study (GFS). Because different well-being reports use different measures, comparison sets, and conceptual frameworks, it seemed helpful to offer some clarifications about how the GFS measures flourishing and how its results should be interpreted. We would like to highlight six points: (1) challenges with comparing countries; (2) the relative magnitude of differences in scores; (3) differences between the GFS and other Gallup datasets; (4) the multidimensional nature of flourishing; (5) the limits in global coverage in the GFS; and (6) the importance of longitudinal observations.
First, country comparisons should be interpreted cautiously. In the GFS, we have generally avoided the language of “rankings” and instead have often made reference to “ordered means.” When looking at scores from different countries, one is not necessarily comparing exactly the same thing, given differences in translation and interpretation, which makes interpreting any simplistic ranking at all straightforward. Not only are there differences in how specific questions are translated and interpreted in different countries, but results can also be affected by factors such as seasonal patterns, sampling frames, and cultural response patterns. These points are subtle but important for interpreting global well-being data.
Second, the results for many countries are often quite close to one another, a point that can be obscured by a simple “ranking table,” where people tend to focus on the ranking rather than the actual scores. Thus, many of the 22 countries in the GFS have a mean flourishing score (on a scale from 0–10, averaged over 12 questions) around 7, and essentially all countries with ranks between 9 and 20 have average scores between 6.8 and 7.2, and we probably should not make too much of such differences. On the other hand, there are also outliers, such as Turkey and Japan with considerably average lower scores (below 6.5), and Indonesia, Israel, Philippines, Mexico, and Poland all with average scores above 7.5. To that point, while we should avoid the idea of absolute “rankings,” there can nevertheless still be considerable value in comparing means.
Third, there is a distinction between the GFS and the Gallup World Poll (GWP). Data collection for both studies is carried out by Gallup, but the two projects differ substantially in scope and measurement, each with its particular strengths. The GWP is an annual cross-sectional survey covering around 150,000 people each year in up to 150 countries, with the survey comprising around 80–100 items on a broad range of issues, with varying relevance to well-being and flourishing. The GFS, by contrast, is a longitudinal panel study of flourishing starting with over 200,000 people in 22 countries, following the same individuals over time, and including a broader range of well-being measures, involving a 109-item questionnaire covering myriad dimensions of flourishing. Conclusions drawn from one dataset should not automatically be extended to the other, and comparisons across the two require care.
Fourth, different reports use different measures. Some reports and ranking tables focus on a single item, the most prominent example of which is the World Happiness Report, which uses data from the GWP and focuses primarily on a single life evaluation question, often referred to as the “Cantril Ladder.” This question asks respondents to imagine a ladder with steps numbered from zero at the bottom to ten at the top, where the top represents the best possible life and the bottom the worst possible life, and to indicate where they feel they stand at present. This question captures a cognitive evaluation of one’s life circumstances. It is not identical to emotional happiness, nor does it necessarily encompass other aspects of well-being such as meaning, character, relationships, or health.
Flourishing, as conceptualized in the GFS, is a more all-inclusive state. Flourishing is multidimensional, which can be obscured by providing “rankings” on a single measure (even if it is noted as a composite index). We have elsewhere defined 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.” The Secure Flourish Index reported in the GFS includes two questions in each of six domains: happiness and life satisfaction; physical and mental health; meaning and purpose; character and virtue; close social relationships; and financial and material stability. This measure does not claim to capture everything that might be included in flourishing, as no measure ever could; but it is considerably broader than life evaluation alone.
Because flourishing is multidimensional, countries may perform differently across domains. In prior work, we have noted that many middle-income countries self-report higher levels of meaning, relationships, and prosocial character, whereas higher-income countries often report stronger life evaluation and financial security. A country’s composite flourishing score reflects performance across all six domains, not merely one. When examining only the Cantril Ladder question within the Global Flourishing Study data, country “rankings” differ from those based on the multidimensional composite index. Such differences arise not because one measure is correct and another is incorrect, but because they assess different constructs.
Fifth, it is also important to recognize that the Global Flourishing Study includes only 22 countries. While these countries were selected to provide geographic, cultural, and religious diversity, and cover a large portion of the world’s total population, the study is not sufficient to draw conclusions about the relative standing of all nations worldwide. Cross-country comparisons must therefore be understood within the limited comparison set of participating countries.
Finally, the principal strength of the Global Flourishing Study lies not in single-time-point country rankings, but in its longitudinal design. By following the same individuals over multiple years, the study is positioned to examine changes within persons over time and to provide stronger evidence about potential determinants of flourishing. The longitudinal structure allows for analyses that move beyond descriptive comparisons toward questions of causation and change.
These studies of happiness, life evaluation, and flourishing can provide important insights into what is going well and what is not; into who needs help and in what ways; and into how trends are changing over time. The subjective self-report measures discussed above should also be reported alongside more objective measures like education, literacy, life expectancy, and economic growth. Together, they can provide a more complete picture of what is going well and what might need to be strengthened.
