The psychometric network of individual flourishing across nationally representative samples from 22 countries

Abstract

To effectively promote human flourishing, it is important to understand how the different dimensions of flourishing might be related to one another in different sociocultural contexts. Applying a systems perspective to flourishing, this study uses nationally representative survey cross-sectional data from 22 geographically and culturally diverse countries included in the Global Flourishing Study (N = 202,898) to explore the interrelatedness of the components of individual flourishing captured by the Secure Flourish Measure. A meta-analytic gaussian network aggregation (MAGNA) model was applied to investigate similarities and differences among the interrelations of individual flourishing components across countries. Results revealed a network of mostly positive interrelations among the 12 components, although there was substantial heterogeneity in the strength of associations, especially between life satisfaction, happiness, and mental health. Understanding cross-country differences in light of socio-contextual peculiarities will be crucial for informing the development of targeted interventions to promote flourishing.

Keywords: Cross-country; Global flourishing study; Meta-analytic gaussian network aggregation; Psychometric network analysis.

Fig. 1

(a) Single-country flourishing networks of the first 11 countries (in alphabetical order) of the 22 countries. Note. Edge thickness indicates edge weight, solid edges indicate positive partial correlations, dashed edges indicate negative partial correlations. H = happiness; LS = life satisfaction; MH = mental health; PH = physical health; SP = sense of purpose; W = life worthwhile; PG = promote good; GU = give up happiness; C = content with relationships; SR = satisfying relationships; E = worry about expenses; WS = worry about safety. (b) Single-country flourishing networks of the last 11 counties (in alphabetical order) of the 22 countries. Note. Edge thickness indicates edge weight, solid edges indicate positive partial correlations, dashed edges indicate negative partial correlations. H = happiness; LS = life satisfaction; MH = mental health; PH = physical health; SP = sense of purpose; W = life worthwhile; PG = promote good; GU = give up happiness; C = content with relationships; SR = satisfying relationships; E = worry about expenses; WS = worry about safety.

Fig. 1

(a) Single-country flourishing networks of the first 11 countries (in alphabetical order) of the 22 countries. Note. Edge thickness indicates edge weight, solid edges indicate positive partial correlations, dashed edges indicate negative partial correlations. H = happiness; LS = life satisfaction; MH = mental health; PH = physical health; SP = sense of purpose; W = life worthwhile; PG = promote good; GU = give up happiness; C = content with relationships; SR = satisfying relationships; E = worry about expenses; WS = worry about safety. (b) Single-country flourishing networks of the last 11 counties (in alphabetical order) of the 22 countries. Note. Edge thickness indicates edge weight, solid edges indicate positive partial correlations, dashed edges indicate negative partial correlations. H = happiness; LS = life satisfaction; MH = mental health; PH = physical health; SP = sense of purpose; W = life worthwhile; PG = promote good; GU = give up happiness; C = content with relationships; SR = satisfying relationships; E = worry about expenses; WS = worry about safety.

Fig. 2

Common-country individual flourishing network generated from the pooled Meta-Analytic Gaussian Network Aggregation (MAGNA). Note. (a) Average layout. (b) Principal Component Analysis layout. Nodes represent flourishing components, and edges represent partial correlation coefficients (edge thickness indicates edge weight). Nodes with the same color belong to the same dimension. H = happiness; LS = life satisfaction; MH = mental health; PH = physical health; SP = sense of purpose; W = life worthwhile; PG = promote good; GU = give up happiness; C = content with relationships; SR = satisfying relationships; E = worry about expenses; WS = worry about safety.

Fig. 3

Estimated edge weights in the pooled Meta-Analytic Gaussian Network Aggregation (MAGNA) and 95% confidence regions based on their standard errors.

Fig. 4

Centrality Indices of the pooled Meta-Analytic Gaussian Network Aggregation (MAGNA).

Fig. 5

Centrality difference plots obtained through a parametric bootstrap. Each block indicates the significance of the difference between centrality indices of two nodes. These were obtained by sampling 1,000,000 network structures from the estimated asymptotic parameter variance–covariance matrices. The α = .0008 level corresponds to a Bonferroni corrected α-level of .05 rounded to 4 digits based on comparing the centralities of all 12 nodes with each other.

Fig. 6

Estimated random effect standard deviations of unconditional associations between the flourishing components. Higher values indicate larger differences between countries in correlational structure.