Although subjective well-being is frequently studied as an outcome of social and psychological factors, little is known about its longitudinal association with future optimism in diverse cultural settings. This study used data from 119,642 participants across 23 societies in the Global Flourishing Study to examine longitudinal associations between future optimism and subjective well-being. Multilevel analyses revealed reciprocal associations between optimism and well-being. However, future optimism at baseline was not significantly linked to subsequent subjective well-being until cultural context was considered. The cultural dimension of flexibility–monumentalism moderated these dynamics, with stronger links observed in flexible societies and weaker associations in more monumentalism contexts. These findings underscore the importance of considering cultural orientations when studying the temporal interplay between optimism and well-being across diverse populations.
Introduction
Subjective well-being (SWB) has become a central focus in psychology, sociology, and public health, serving as a key indicator of both individual flourishing and societal development (Buecker et al., 2023; Das et al., 2020; VanderWeele et al., 2025; Zheng & Shen, 2025). It generally refers to individuals’ overall evaluations of their lives, including both cognitive judgments, such as life satisfaction, and affective experiences of happiness or unhappiness (Diener et al., 1999). While socioeconomic conditions are important determinants (Tan et al., 2020), psychological dispositions also play a crucial role in shaping how individuals experience and evaluate their lives (Fuochi & Voci, 2021). Among these dispositions, dispositional optimism, defined as the generalized expectation that good things will happen in the future (Carver et al., 2010), has consistently been shown to predict higher life satisfaction, greater positive affect, and stronger resilience in the face of adversity (Carver & Scheier, 2017; Scheier et al., 2021).
Prior research has made valuable contributions by demonstrating the beneficial role of optimism in coping with stress, promoting health, and enhancing SWB (Carver et al., 2010; Piper, 2022). In addition, Joshanloo (2024) examined the bidirectional relationship between optimism and SWB and offered valuable insights into their dynamic interplay. However, this study was limited to a U.S. sample, which constrains its cultural and regional generalizability. Scholars have increasingly called for more attention to SWB research in non-Western and developing societies, where cultural orientations and social structures may shape psychological processes differently (Maulana & Khawaja, 2022; Zhang et al., 2024). In addition, prior research has often operationalized SWB narrowly, either using life satisfaction (Piao et al., 2022) or happiness (Xu et al., 2023) as the sole indicator or analyzing life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect separately (Joshanloo, 2024). Few studies have approached SWB from an integrated perspective that combines both evaluative and affective components, even though this more comprehensive view better reflects the multidimensional nature of SWB (Ruggeri et al., 2020; VanderWeele & Johnson, 2025).
To move beyond prior limitations, the present study advances both theoretical and methodological approaches. Theoretically, it incorporates Flexibility–Monumentalism (FLX-MON) as a cultural-level moderator, a dimension that distinguishes societies valuing adaptability, self-change, and openness to new opportunities (Flexibility) from those emphasizing stability, destiny, and fixed selfhood (Monumentalism) (Minkov et al., 2018). This framework is particularly relevant to future optimism, as it reflects cultural beliefs about whether the future is malleable or predetermined, thereby offering novel insights into how cultural contexts condition the association between future optimism and SWB. Methodologically, the study overcomes the limitations of previous cross-national surveys, such as the World Values Survey, which rely on repeated cross-sectional designs and cannot capture individual-level trajectories or reciprocal processes (e.g., Glatz & Schwerdtfeger, 2022; Zheng & Shen, 2025). Drawing on the Global Flourishing Study (VanderWeele et al., 2025), a two-wave panel of more than 200,000 individuals across over 20 societies, this research leverages longitudinal, individual-level data and multidimensional measures of SWB. Together, these innovations enable a more comprehensive examination of the reciprocal relationship between future optimism and SWB across diverse cultural contexts.
Specifically, this study addresses two questions:
(1) Is there a reciprocal relationship between future optimism and SWB at the individual level over time?
(2) Does societal Flexibility–Monumentalism moderate the reciprocal relationship between optimism and SWB?
This study has several potential contributions. Theoretically, it advances research on optimism and well-being by moving beyond unidirectional models and demonstrating their reciprocal association across societies. Methodologically, it leverages large-scale longitudinal and multilevel data to address limitations of prior cross-sectional designs and to provide effect size estimates that speak to the substantive importance of findings. Practically, the results may inform culturally sensitive interventions and policies aimed at fostering optimism and promoting well-being, especially in societies where cultural orientations such as Monumentalism may constrain individuals’ belief in a malleable future.
Literature Review and Research Hypotheses
Future Optimism and Subjective Well-Being
Some research has shown that optimism is linked to greater life satisfaction, stronger positive affect, and lower levels of stress and depressive symptoms (Piper, 2022; Romswinkel et al., 2018; Vickers & Vogeltanz, 2000). Optimism has also been associated with better coping strategies and resilience, which help individuals maintain well-being in the face of challenges (Carver & Scheier, 2017). These findings highlight optimism as a robust predictor of well-being across different populations.
Moreover, scholars have argued that well-being itself may serve as a foundation for optimism (Busseri, 2013; Hong et al., 2019). Individuals who feel satisfied with their lives and experience frequent positive emotions are more likely to maintain hope for the future (Kiken & Fredrickson, 2017). This possibility is consistent with theories emphasizing the reciprocal nature of psychological resources, such as the broaden-and-build perspective (Fredrickson, 2013). Recent studies lend support to this idea. For example, Joshanloo (2024) provided evidence for reciprocal associations between optimism and SWB, showing that each can reinforce the other over time. However, such studies are still relatively rare, often restricted to Western samples, and leave open questions about whether similar dynamics hold across different cultural settings (Maulana & Khawaja, 2022; Zhang et al., 2024). Despite these insights, evidence on the reciprocal dynamics between optimism and SWB is still limited, particularly across diverse regional and cultural contexts. This study builds on existing findings to examine whether optimism and well-being mutually reinforce each other over time.
The Moderating Role of Flexibility–Monumentalism
Flexibility–Monumentalism is a cultural dimension proposed by Minkov et al. (2018) that highlights fundamental differences in self-perception and beliefs about the capacity for change. Monumentalism reflects a belief in which individuals are encouraged to uphold a consistent, proud, and stable identity, resembling a monolithic monument that is internally and externally uniform (Minkov & Kaasa, 2021). People in such cultures are often socialized to maintain strong self-beliefs, adhere to traditional values, and regard personal attributes and life paths as relatively fixed and predetermined (Minkov & Kaasa, 2021). Flexibility, by contrast, emphasizes adaptability, humility, and emotional restraint, reflecting the belief that individuals can reshape their lives through effort and adjustment (Minkov & Kaasa, 2022; Zheng et al., 2024). In flexible societies, people are encouraged to adjust themselves to circumstances, exercise self-control, and remain open to future opportunities (Minkov et al., 2018).
This dimension provides a meaningful framework for understanding the link between future optimism and SWB. In flexible cultures, optimism about the future is consistent with the belief that life outcomes can be altered through effort and adjustment, making optimism more likely to be expressed in enhanced well-being (Minkov & Kaasa, 2022; Zheng et al., 2024). Similarly, higher levels of well-being in such contexts may further strengthen optimism, as people learn to view positive emotions and adaptive strategies as resources for future challenges (Fredrickson, 2013; Joshanloo, 2024). In more monumental cultures, by contrast, optimism may be less tightly linked to well-being, since cultural norms emphasize stability, destiny, and maintaining a fixed self-concept (Minkov et al., 2018).
The Current Study
The present study examines the longitudinal and reciprocal association between future optimism and SWB across more than 20 societies using two-wave data from the Global Flourishing Study (GFS). Unlike prior research that often relied on cross-sectional or single-region designs, the GFS provides large-scale panel data and a multidimensional assessment of SWB, enabling a more comprehensive test of reciprocal dynamics. In addition, Flexibility–Monumentalism (FLX-MON) is incorporated as a cultural-level moderator to explore whether optimism about the future is more strongly linked to well-being in flexible societies than in monumental ones. To capture changes over time and reduce bias from initial differences, baseline levels of Future Optimism and SWB are included as controls. We also controlled gender and age at the individual level and for national development using the Human Development Index (HDI) (Morse, 2023; Zheng & Shen, 2025; Zheng et al., 2025). Based on the literature, we test the following hypotheses:
H1a. Future optimism at Time 1 is expected to be positively associated with SWB at Time 2, controlling for baseline SWB.
H1b. SWB at Time 1 is expected to be positively associated with Future optimism at Time 2, controlling for baseline future optimism.
H2a. The positive association between future optimism and later SWB is expected to be stronger in more flexible cultures than in more monumental cultures.
H2b. The positive association between SWB and later future optimism is expected to be stronger in more flexible cultures than in more monumental cultures.
Figure 1. The conceptual model. Note. T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2
Methods
Data
We employed data from the Global Flourishing Study, an international longitudinal survey coordinated by Gallup, Inc. At the first time point, over 200,000 adults were recruited across more than 20 societies, with sampling strategies tailored to national contexts to approximate population distributions (Padgett et al., 2025). A complete list of included societies is provided in Supplemental material Table S1.
The GFS questionnaire was developed to capture multiple domains of well-being, including evaluative, emotional, health-related, relational, and financial aspects (Lomas, Bradshaw et al., 2025). Translation followed the TRAPD (translation, review, adjudication, pretesting, and documentation) protocol in accordance with good practices for cross-cultural survey research (Johnson et al., 2024; Lomas, Bradshaw et al., 2025).
Fieldwork for the first time point was conducted primarily in 2023, with some sites beginning in late 2022 (Padgett et al., 2025). Four additional annual data collections are scheduled between 2024 and 2027, and data from the first two time points are currently available for public use (https://www.cos.io/gfs-wave-data). The study was preregistered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/fx7dz). Data cleaning was carried out in Stata 15, while all descriptive statistics, visualizations, multilevel analyses, and robustness checks were performed in R 4.3.2. The corresponding Stata and R scripts are publicly available on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/dpk5c/files/osfstorage).
Measures
Subjective Well-Being
SWB was constructed from 10 flourishing-related indicators in the GFS, covering five domains such as happiness, health, meaning, character, and relationships, since individual aspects of flourishing can effectively constitute well-being (VanderWeele et al., 2025). The SWB index was a mean of the 10 individual indicators, with higher scores indicating greater well-being. Internal consistency was high, with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.892 at Time 1 and 0.893 at Time 2 (Taber, 2018). Evidence of measurement equivalence across societies is provided in Supplementary material (Figure S1), indicating the validity of cross-national comparisons. The exact wording and response formats of all 10 indicators are presented in Table S2 of the supplementary material.
Future Optimism
Future optimism was assessed with the GFS item: “Despite challenges, I always remain hopeful about the future” (VanderWeele et al., 2025), rated from 0 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree). Higher scores represent stronger optimism about the future. Previous studies have shown that single-item indicators can function as valid tools of assessment and are not automatically less reliable than multi-item scales, provided that the construct is narrowly defined and the wording precise (Zeng et al., 2023; Zheng et al., 2025). In the context of cross-national surveys, this strategy is frequently employed, as issues of translation, respondent fatigue, and questionnaire length often necessitate more concise measures.
Demographics
Gender (0 = female, 1 = male) and age (continuous) were included as individual-level controls. For participants of other genders (about 400 cases), we omitted them from the main analysis but included them in the Supplementary material (see Point 4).
Flexibility–Monumentalism (FLX-MON)
FLX-MON served as a cultural-level moderator, with society scores taken from the Minkov-Hofstede Cultural Dimensions database (Minkov & Kaasa, 2022). Values range from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating a monumentalism orientation and higher scores reflecting greater flexibility.
Human Development Index (HDI)
HDI scores were drawn from the UNDP Human Development Report 2023/2024 (Conceicao, 2024). We used 2022 estimates to align with the GFS data collection period (primarily 2023, with some countries beginning in 2022). The HDI is a composite index of life expectancy, education, and income, ranging from 0 to 1, with higher scores reflecting greater national development.
Analytical Strategy
We applied weighted multilevel modeling (hierarchical linear modeling) to examine reciprocal links between future optimism and SWB, as well as the cross-level moderating role of Flexibility–Monumentalism. Individual-level predictors were group-mean centered, whereas culture-level predictors were grand-mean centered. Society means of the individual-level variables, including future optimism at T1, SWB at T1, age at T1, and gender, were calculated to capture the national-level dynamics of these variables.
As a first step, null models were estimated with SWB at Time 2 and future optimism at Time 2 as outcomes, excluding predictors. These models allowed us to compute the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), which quantifies the share of variance attributable to between-society differences. ICC values above 0.059, following Cohen (2013) guidelines, indicated the necessity of multilevel modeling to account for clustering at the societal level.
Next, the main models with random slopes and intercepts were estimated to test reciprocal associations. One model predicted SWB at Time 2 from future optimism at Time 1, adjusting for baseline SWB. The second model predicted future optimism at Time 2 from SWB at Time 1, controlling for baseline optimism. Both models included individual-level controls (gender and age).
We then constructed full models that incorporated cross-level interactions with FLX-MON. In the first, the interaction between future optimism (Time 1) and FLX-MON was entered to predict SWB (Time 2). In the second, the interaction between SWB (Time 1) and FLX-MON was entered to predict future optimism (Time 2). Both models also adjusted for societal-level controls, including FLX-MON and the HDI. To probe significant cross-level interactions, simple slope tests were conducted (Preacher et al., 2006).
Furthermore, we paid attention to effect sizes, as some prior research on well-being has emphasized statistical significance without evaluating the magnitude of associations. This omission is increasingly acknowledged as a limitation, since very large samples can generate results that are significant but substantively trivial (Engman, 2013; Geerling & Diener, 2020). By reporting standardized coefficients and benchmarks for substantive importance, this study provides a more rigorous assessment of the practical significance of future optimism and SWB dynamics.
Data Cleaning
To construct the longitudinal dataset, we retained only respondents who participated in both Time 1 and Time 2, resulting in 128,868 cases. Then, we excluded individuals with missing information on future optimism, SWB, gender, or baseline age across the two time points. After this step, the analytic sample consisted of 119,642 participants. Data for all societal-level measures, including Flexibility–Monumentalism and the HDI, were complete across the 23 societies. Therefore, the final dataset comprised 119,642 individuals nested within 23 societies, which served as the basis for the multilevel analyses.
Results
Descriptive Statistics and Preliminary Analyses
Supplemental material Table S1 summarizes descriptive statistics by society. Columns 2–9 present the means and standard deviations of the individual-level variables, including SWB and future optimism at both time points. Column 10 lists the proportion of male respondents, while Column 11-12 reports the mean and standard deviation of baseline age. Columns 13 and 14 provide the societal-level indicators, Flexibility–Monumentalism, and the HDI. Columns 15 and 16 show the included samples and missing cases for each society and region.
To ensure that the factor structure derived from the overall sample was appropriately represented within each society or region, we conducted a Procrustes rotation (van de Vijver & Leung, 2021) and calculated Tucker’s phi congruence coefficients (Tucker, 1951) to assess factorial agreement across countries and regions. The results showed high congruence. In particular, SWB both at Time 1 and Time 2 had an average Tucker’s phi of 0.997 (see Supplemental Material Table S3). Tucker’s phi values exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.950, indicating a good congruence across countries and regions (Lorenzo-Seva & Ten Berge, 2006).
To assess the need for multilevel modeling, we first estimated unconditional models with SWB and future optimism at Time 2 as outcomes. The resulting intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were 0.126 and 0.121, respectively, both exceeding the 0.059 guideline suggested by Cohen (2013). These values indicate that a meaningful share of the variance lies between societies, warranting the use of multilevel models.
Main Model Results
Table 1 reports the estimates from the primary multilevel models. Future optimism at Time 1 was not significantly associated with SWB at Time 2 (b = 0.036, p > .05). In contrast, SWB at Time 1 was positively related to future optimism at Time 2 (b = 0.291, p < .001), consistent with Hypothesis 1b. Both constructs also showed considerable temporal stability: SWB at Time 1 was strongly associated with SWB at Time 2 (b = 0.576, p < .001), and future optimism at Time 1 was closely related to future optimism at Time 2 (b = 0.307, p < .001).
Table 1. Estimations of Main Models
Dependent variable
SWB at T2
Future optimism at T2
Individual-level coefficient
Future optimism at T1
0.036
0.307***
(0.020)
(0.003)
SWB at T1
0.576***
0.291***
(0.003)
(0.042)
Gender
0.027***
−0.015
(0.007)
(0.011)
Age at T1
0.002***
−0.003***
(0.0002)
(0.0003)
Akaike’s information criterion
244,601.2
418,665.2
Notes. (1) Standard errors are reported in parentheses; (2) SWB = subjective well-being, T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2; (3) ***p < 0.001; (4) Weighted N = 116,976; (5) The number of societies is 23; (6) Society-level variations in future optimism, subjective well-being, gender, and age were controlled for.
Among the controls, gender and age demonstrated systematic associations. Males reported higher levels of SWB (b = 0.027, p < .001) while there was no significant association between gender and future optimism (b = −0.015, p > .05). Older respondents tended to report greater SWB (b = 0.002, p < .001) but lower future optimism (b = −0.003, p < .001).
Table 2 summarizes the results from the full multilevel models, which include both individual- and societal-level variables as well as cross-level interactions. At the individual level, future optimism at Time 1 was positively related to SWB at Time 2 (b = 0.036, p < .05), and SWB at Time 1 was positively associated with future optimism at Time 2 (b = 0.290, p < .001). Both outcomes also demonstrated high temporal stability (SWB: b = 0.576, p < .001; future optimism: b = 0.307, p < .001). Gender and age showed consistent patterns, with males reporting higher SWB, while no gender difference in future optimism, and older individuals showed higher SWB but lower optimism. Considering gender diversity, respondents identifying as other genders were included in the additional analysis. As shown in Table S4, they reported slightly lower SWB (not statistically significant, p > .05) and significantly lower future optimism (p < .001) compared with males and females.
Table 2. Estimations of Full Models
Dependent variable
SWB at T2
Future optimism at T2
Individual-level coefficient
Future optimism at T1
0.036*
0.307***
(0.017)
(0.003)
SWB at T1
0.576***
0.290***
(0.003)
(0.033)
Gender
0.027***
−0.015
(0.007)
(0.011)
Age at T1
0.002***
−0.003***
(0.0002)
(0.0003)
Society-level coefficient
FLX-MON
−0.133
−0.563
(0.280)
(0.318)
HDI
1.224**
1.312**
(0.388)
(0.444)
Cross-level interaction item coefficient
Future optimism at T1 × FLX-MON
0.215**
(0.074)
SWB at T1 × FLX-MON
0.549***
(0.141)
Akaike’s information criterion
418,661.1
520,741.6
Notes. (1) Standard errors are reported in parentheses; (2) SWB = subjective well-being, FLX-MON = Flexibility–Monumentalism, HDI = Human Development Index, T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2; (3) ***p < .001, **p < .01,*p < .05.; (4) Weighted N = 116,976; (5) The number of societies is 23; (6) Society-level variations in future optimism, subjective well-being, gender, and age were controlled for.
At the societal level, FLX-MON was not significantly related to both SWB (b = −0.133, p > .05) and future optimism (b = −0.563, p > .05). In contrast, the HDI was positively associated with SWB (b = 1.224, p < .01) and was positively correlated with future optimism (b = 1.312, p < .01). The models also incorporated cross-level interactions to test moderation by FLX-MON. The interaction between future optimism at Time 1 and FLX-MON was significant for SWB at Time 2 (b = 0.215, p < .01), suggesting that optimism had stronger implications for well-being in more flexible societies, which is consistent with Hypothesis 2a. Likewise, the interaction between SWB at Time 1 and FLX-MON was significant for future optimism at Time 2 (b = 0.549, p < .001), supporting Hypothesis 2b. These findings highlight the role of cultural orientation in shaping the reciprocal links between future optimism and SWB. Robustness checks, reported in Tables S5–S7, indicate that the findings remain stable when analyses are conducted without sampling weights and when additional cultural dimensions are included as control variables.
To test effect sizes, we evaluated the magnitude of differences between individuals at the extremes of future optimism and SWB. Following Geerling and Diener (2020), we compared respondents scoring the highest on future optimism (10 points; N = 38,101) with those scoring the lowest (0 points; N = 1,790). The future optimism difference in SWB at Time 2 was large (d = 1.568, 95% CI = [1.520, 1.617]) (Cohen, 2013; Geerling & Diener, 2020). Likewise, respondents scoring the highest on SWB (10 points; N = 3,496) and those scoring the lowest (0 points; N = 66) were compared. The difference of SWB in future optimism at Time 2 was large (d = 2.745, 95% CI = [2.493, 2.997]) (Cohen, 2013; Geerling & Diener, 2020).
Because the number of participants scoring 0 on SWB at Time 1 was small (N = 66), we also considered broader low-SWB groups (0-1 and 0–2). Specifically, respondents scoring the highest on SWB at Time 1 (10 points; N = 3,496) were compared with those scoring 0 to 1 points (N = 303). The difference in future optimism at Time 2 was large (d = 2.538, 95% CI = [2.407, 2.668]) (Cohen, 2013; Geerling & Diener, 2020). A similarly large effect size was observed when comparing the high-SWB group with the broader low-SWB group (0 to 2 points; N = 980), again yielding a large difference in future optimism at Time 2 (d = 2.274, 95% CI = [2.189, 2.359]).
To further probe the significant moderation by Flexibility–Monumentalism, we conducted simple slope analyses. Figure 2 illustrates the conditional effects, with FLX-MON plotted at the upper quartile (flexibility) and the lower quartile (monumentalism). For comparability, the upper and lower quartiles of baseline future optimism and SWB were used to illustrate the range of the sample distribution. The left panel shows that the association between future optimism at Time 1 and SWB at Time 2 was stronger in more flexible societies, whereas the relationship was nearly flat in more monumental societies. The right panel indicates a similar pattern for the reverse pathway: SWB at Time 1 was more strongly linked to future optimism at Time 2 in flexible societies, while the slope was weaker under monumentalism. These results reinforce the cultural contingency of the reciprocal association between optimism and well-being and provide robust support for Hypotheses 2a and 2b.
Figure 2. Simple slope test result. Note. Cross-lagged associations between future optimism and subjective well-being across cultural orientations. The left panel shows that higher future optimism at Time 1 is associated with higher subjective well-being at Time 2. The right panel shows that higher subjective well-being at Time 1 predicts higher future optimism at Time 2. In both panels, the positive associations appear stronger in flexibility-oriented cultures (solid lines) than in monumentalism-oriented cultures (dashed lines)
Discussion
General Discussion
This study provides new longitudinal and cross-cultural evidence on the reciprocal link between future optimism and SWB. Prior work has generally shown that optimism contributes to well-being (Carver & Scheier, 2017; Scheier et al., 2021) and, more recently, that well-being can also enhance optimism (Joshanloo, 2024). Our study extends this literature by documenting these mutual associations across more than 20 societies, thereby addressing concerns about the heavy reliance on Western samples in previous research (Maulana & Khawaja, 2022; Zhang et al., 2024).
A key finding lies in demonstrating the moderating role of culture. In the main models (Table 1), future optimism at baseline was not significantly linked to subsequent SWB, which differs from Joshanloo (2024) findings with American participants. One explanation is that cultural and institutional factors may also play a role: in some societies, optimism is viewed as excessive confidence or even unrealistic, which can weaken its benefits for well-being (Chang, 2001). Moreover, when social environments lack opportunity structures, personal optimism may not readily translate into higher life satisfaction or positive affect (Joshanloo, 2014). When cultural dimensions were included (Table 2), however, this association reached significance, underscoring the importance of considering societal context (Diener et al., 2018). As Figure 2 shows, in flexible cultures, optimism is more readily translated into higher later well-being, while in monumental cultures, the relationship is nearly absent (Minkov et al., 2018). Likewise, SWB at baseline was more strongly related to later optimism in flexible contexts. These findings suggest that cultural orientations emphasizing adaptability and change amplify the reciprocal reinforcement between optimism and well-being, whereas cultures stressing stability and fixed selfhood attenuate it (Minkov & Kaasa, 2021, 2022).
Moreover, our analyses of effect sizes indicate that the associations are not only statistically reliable but also substantively important. The differences between individuals high and low in optimism or well-being were large (Cohen’s d > 1.0), providing evidence that the observed dynamics are meaningful at the population level (Cohen, 2013).
Additionally, the GFS validated 10-item measure of SWB produces society-level rankings that differ from those commonly reported in the World Happiness Report (Helliwell et al., 2025). The latter is based on a single life evaluation item from the Gallup World Poll, which asks respondents to rate their current position on a 0–10 “ladder of life” scale. This question often emphasizes perceptions of status and material conditions more than other aspects of well-being, such as relationships or life purpose (Helliwell et al., 2023; Nilsson et al., 2024). In contrast, the GFS flourishing measure assesses SWB across multiple domains, including happiness, health, meaning, character, and relationships, thereby capturing a broader conception of well-being (VanderWeele et al., 2025). This multidimensional scope, combined with cultural variation in how well-being is experienced and reported, contributes to persistent discrepancies in national rankings (Diener et al., 2018; VanderWeele et al., 2025).
Countries such as Israel and Poland report high levels of flourishing-based SWB, possibly due to cultural values that emphasize religious engagement, community life, or psychological resilience (Chen et al., 2020). Prior studies have shown that religious participation is positively associated with various components of SWB, including life satisfaction, sense of meaning, and social connectedness (VanderWeele & Ouyang, 2025). In comparison, several economically advanced Western European countries report lower levels in areas related to meaning and mental health (Lomas, Padgett et al., 2025; Oishi & Diener, 2014). These patterns indicate that cross-national differences in SWB rankings reflect the strengths of a multidimensional framework. The flourishing-related indicators in the GFS offer a more comprehensive and culturally attuned method for assessing well-being across societies, reinforcing its value in comparative research (VanderWeele & Johnson, 2025).
Taken together, these findings provide robust longitudinal evidence that optimism and well-being are dynamically intertwined, while also demonstrating how cultural orientations shape the strength of this relationship. They extend prior research by clarifying inconsistent results, highlighting the importance of cultural heterogeneity, and establishing the substantive significance of the effects.
Theoretical Implications
The findings of this study offer several theoretical contributions. First, the findings enrich theoretical perspectives on SWB. Previous studies have suggested that an individual’s economic circumstances (Tan et al., 2020) and psychological dispositions (Fuochi & Voci, 2021) can influence their SWB. By documenting reciprocal dynamics between future optimism and SWB, our results suggest that well-being is not merely an endpoint, but also an antecedent that may shape hope about the future (Joshanloo, 2024). This highlights the value of moving beyond static models of SWB toward dynamic frameworks.
Second, our study advances cross-cultural psychology by showing that reciprocal processes between optimism and well-being vary systematically across societies. The moderating role of Flexibility–Monumentalism indicates that cultural beliefs about adaptability, humility, and openness to change strengthen the reinforcing cycle between optimism and well-being (Minkov et al., 2018). By contrast, in monumental cultures, where stability and destiny are emphasized, optimism is less likely to translate into improved well-being, and well-being provides weaker reinforcement for optimism (Minkov & Kaasa, 2022). These findings help us understand whether SWB factors are universal or tied to one’s environment (Diener et al., 2018; Zheng & Shen, 2025). Our evidence suggests that cultural orientations are associated not only with average levels of well-being across societies, but also with the mechanisms through which well-being is sustained over time.
Third, this study bridges perspectives from positive psychology and resource-based theories. Positive psychology views optimism as a psychological strength (Csikszentmihalyi & Seligman, 2000), while resource conservation theory emphasizes the accumulation of personal which may be more strongly reinforced in flexible societies. Our study demonstrates that cultural environments act as enabling conditions for the effectiveness of psychological resources. This integration broadens theoretical models of human flourishing by embedding individual dispositions within societal contexts.
Practical Implications
First, the evidence for reciprocal links between future optimism and SWB suggests that interventions targeting either construct can initiate reinforcing cycles of improvement. For example, school-based programs that foster optimism through future connect (Chishima & Wilson, 2021; Shen et al., 2024) and resilience training (Gavín-Chocano et al., 2023) may not only increase students’ sense of hope but also enhance their broader well-being. Similarly, community or workplace initiatives that improve life satisfaction or health may, in turn, strengthen individuals’ optimism about the future (Cavioni et al., 2021). The longitudinal nature of our findings indicates that these benefits can accumulate over time, underscoring the value of sustained investment in interventions that enhance psychological resources.
In addition, the moderating role of cultural orientations emphasizes the necessity of context-sensitive strategies. In flexible societies, where adaptability and self-improvement are valued (Zheng et al., 2024), interventions may be most effective when they emphasize personal agency and growth opportunities. For example, career counseling or educational programs could focus on helping individuals set future-oriented goals, learn adaptive coping skills, and view challenges as opportunities for change. In monumentalist societies, however, optimism and well-being may be better supported through strategies that align with cultural emphases on stability, tradition, and collective identity (Minkov et al., 2018). For instance, interventions might highlight family support, respect for cultural heritage, or religious and community rituals as sources of hope and meaning. At the policy level, governments in flexible contexts could prioritize training and innovation programs, while those in monumentalism contexts might focus more on community solidarity, intergenerational support systems, or moral education (Li et al., 2022). These examples illustrate that well-being programs cannot be universally designed but must reflect cultural values to achieve genuine impact.
Moreover, the large-scale and longitudinal design of this study offers guidance for policy evaluation and social planning. Because the effects of optimism and SWB are not only statistically significant but also substantively meaningful, governments and organizations can use these indicators to monitor population resilience during crises such as pandemics, economic downturns, or demographic transitions (Öner et al., 2025).
Limitations and Future Directions
Several limitations of this study should be acknowledged. First, the analyses were based on only two time points, which restricts the ability to capture long-term developmental trajectories of optimism and well-being. Future research could make use of additional waves from the Global Flourishing Study or other longitudinal surveys to provide stronger evidence about the stability and temporal sequencing of these reciprocal processes (Lomas, Bradshaw et al., 2025). Second, future optimism was measured with a single survey item, although this approach is common and often acceptable in large-scale cross-national surveys. The use of multi-item scales would improve reliability and allow for distinguishing related but distinct constructs such as optimism, hope, and future orientation. Finally, the missing data on SWB, future optimism, age, and gender resulted in the removal of 9,226 individuals and may introduce some selection bias. Nevertheless, the use of weighted multilevel models helps reduce the effect of differential nonresponse and supports the representativeness of our findings.
Conclusion
This study investigated the associations between future optimism and SWB across more than 20 societies using longitudinal data. The results show that optimism and well-being are interrelated over time, and that these dynamics vary depending on cultural context. In particular, the dimension of Flexibility–Monumentalism shapes how optimism and well-being are linked, underscoring the need to interpret psychological processes within their cultural orientations. Overall, the study advances a more dynamic and culturally informed perspective on SWB.
Acknowledgements
We sincerely thank the Global Flourishing Study team for generously providing access to their data.
Ethical Considerations
This study is based on secondary analysis of publicly available data. The dataset was collected and managed by the survey organizers in accordance with relevant ethical standards. As the research uses anonymized secondary data and does not involve direct interaction with human subjects, no additional ethical approval was required.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Author Contributions JS conceptualized the study. JS led the writing of the article with critical comments provided by JZ. JZ revised the manuscript. JZ oversaw data collection and data cleaning. JZ conducted the analysis with guidance from JS. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Data availability statement
The primary data used in this study are available in the Open Science Framework repository upon submission of pre-registration https://www.cos.io/gfs-access-data (accessed on June 9, 2025). The study was preregistered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/fx7dz). The Stata and R codes are available on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/dpk5c/files/osfstorage.
References
Buecker S., Luhmann M., Haehner P., Bühler J. L., Dapp L. C., Luciano E. C., Orth U. (2023). The development of subjective well-being across the life span: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 149(7-8), 418–446. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000401
Busseri M. A. (2013). How dispositional optimists and pessimists evaluate their past, present and anticipated future life satisfaction: A lifespan approach. European Journal of Personality, 27(2), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1854
Carver C. S., Scheier M. F. (2017). Optimism, coping, and well-being. In: The handbook of stress and health (pp. 400–414). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118993811.ch24
Cavioni V., Grazzani I., Ornaghi V., Agliati A., Pepe A. (2021). Adolescents’ mental health at school: The mediating role of life satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 720628. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.720628
Chang E. C. (2001). Cultural influences on optimism and pessimism: Differences in Western and Eastern construals of the self (optimism & pessimism: Implications for theory, research, and practice) (pp. 257–280). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10385-012
Chen Y., Kim E. S., VanderWeele T. J. (2020). Religious-service attendance and subsequent health and well-being throughout adulthood: Evidence from three prospective cohorts. International Journal of Epidemiology, 49(6), 2030–2040. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyaa120
Chishima Y., Wilson A. E. (2021). Conversation with a future self: A letter-exchange exercise enhances student self-continuity, career planning, and academic thinking. Self and Identity, 20(5), 646–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2020.1754283
Das K. V., Jones-Harrell C., Fan Y., Ramaswami A., Orlove B., Botchwey N. (2020). Understanding subjective well-being: Perspectives from psychology and public health. Public Health Reviews, 41(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40985-020-00142-5
Diener E., Seligman M. E. P., Choi H., Oishi S. (2018). Happiest people revisited. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 176–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617697077
Diener E., Suh E. M., Lucas R. E., Smith H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276
Engman A. (2013). Is there life after p < .05? Statistical significance and quantitative sociology. Quality and Quantity, 47(1), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9516-z
Fredrickson B. L. (2013). Chapter one - Positive emotions broaden and build. In Devine P., Plant A. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 1–53). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00001-2
Fuochi G., Voci A. (2021). Dealing with the ups and downs of life: Positive dispositions in coping with negative and positive events and their relationships with well-being indicators. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22(6), 2435–2456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-020-00329-2
Gavín-Chocano Ó., García-Martínez I., Pérez-Navío E., Molero D. (2023). Resilience as a mediating variable between emotional intelligence and optimism-pessimism among university students in Spanish universities. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 47(3), 407–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2022.2133994
Geerling D. M., Diener E. (2020). Effect size strengths in subjective well-being research. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 15(1), 167–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-018-9670-8
Glatz C., Schwerdtfeger A. (2022). Disentangling the causal structure between social trust, institutional trust, and subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 163(3), 1323–1348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-022-02914-9
Helliwell J. F., Huang H., Norton M., Goff L., Wang S. (2023). World happiness, trust and social connections in times of crisis. World happiness report, 2023. Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
Hong J. H., Charles S. T., Lee S., Lachman M. E. (2019). Perceived changes in life satisfaction from the past, present and to the future: A comparison of U.S. and Japan. Psychology and Aging, 34(3), 317–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000345
Johnson K. A., Moon J. W., VanderWeele T. J., Schnitker S., Johnson B. R. (2024). Assessing religion and spirituality in a cross-cultural sample: Development of religion and spirituality items for the global flourishing study. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 14(4), 345–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2023.2217245
Joshanloo M. (2014). Eastern conceptualizations of happiness: Fundamental differences with Western views. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(2), 475–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9431-1
Joshanloo M. (2024). Re-Examining the direction of the relationship between optimism and subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 174(2), 553–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-024-03402-y
Kiken L. G., Fredrickson B. L. (2017). Cognitive aspects of positive emotions: A broader view for well-being. In Robinson M. D., Eid M. (Eds.), The happy mind: Cognitive contributions to well-being (pp. 157–175). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58763-9_9
Li J., Akaliyski P., Heisig J. P., Löbl S., Minkov M. (2022). Flexible societies excelled in saving lives in the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 924385. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.924385
Lomas T., Bradshaw M., Case B., Cowden R. G., Crabtree S., English C., Fogleman A., Johnson K. A., Ritter Z., Johnson B. R., VanderWeele T. J. (2025). The development of the global flourishing study questionnaire: Charting the evolution of a new 109-item inventory of human flourishing. BMC Global and Public Health, 3(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s44263-025-00139-9
Lomas T., Padgett R. N., Lai A. Y., Pawelski J. O., VanderWeele T. J. (2025). A multidimensional assessment of global flourishing: Differential rankings of 145 countries on 38 wellbeing indicators in the Gallup World Poll, with an accompanying principal components analyses of the structure of flourishing. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 20(3), 397–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2024.2370538
Lorenzo-Seva U., Ten Berge J. M. (2006). Tucker’s congruence coefficient as a meaningful index of factor similarity. Methodology, 2(2), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.2.2.57
Maulana H., Khawaja N. G. (2022). A cultural perspective of well-being. In Deb S., Gerrard B. A. (Eds.), Handbook of health and well-being: Challenges, strategies and future trends (pp. 35–49). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8263-6_2
Minkov M., Bond M. H., Dutt P., Schachner M., Morales O., Sanchez C., Jandosova J., Khassenbekov Y., Mudd B. (2018). A reconsideration of Hofstede’s fifth dimension: New flexibility versus Monumentalism data from 54 countries. Cross-Cultural Research, 52(3), 309–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397117727488
Minkov M., Kaasa A. (2021). A test of the revised Minkov-Hofstede model of culture: Mirror images of subjective and objective culture across nations and the 50 US states. Cross-Cultural Research, 55(2-3), 230–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/10693971211014468
Minkov M., Kaasa A. (2022). Do dimensions of culture exist objectively? A validation of the revised Minkov-Hofstede model of culture with world values survey items and scores for 102 countries. Journal of International Management, 28(4), 100971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2022.100971
Morse S. (2023). Quality of life, well-being and the human development index: A media narrative for the developed world? Social Indicators Research, 170(3), 1035–1058. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-023-03230-6
Nilsson A. H., Eichstaedt J. C., Lomas T., Schwartz A., Kjell O. (2024). The Cantril Ladder elicits thoughts about power and wealth. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 2642. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52939-y
Oishi S., Diener E. (2014). Residents of poor nations have a greater sense of meaning in life than residents of wealthy nations. Psychological Science, 25(2), 422–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613507286
Öner S., Szpunar K., Watson L. A., Cole S. (2025). Spatial optimism in individuals' future thinking about the COVID-19 pandemic. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 39(3), Article e70080. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.70080
Padgett R. N., Cowden R. G., Chattopadhyay M., Han Y., Honohan J., Ritter Z., Srinivasan R., Johnson B. R., VanderWeele T. J. (2025). Survey sampling design in wave 1 of the global flourishing study. European Journal of Epidemiology, 40(4), 391–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-024-01167-9
Piao X., Ma X., Tsurumi T., Managi S. (2022). Social capital, negative event, life satisfaction and sustainable community: Evidence from 37 countries. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 17(3), 1311–1330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-021-09955-1
Piper A. (2022). Optimism, pessimism and life satisfaction: An empirical investigation. International Review of Economics, 69(2), 177–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12232-022-00390-8
Preacher K. J., Curran P. J., Bauer D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(4), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986031004437
Romswinkel E. V., König H. H., Hajek A. (2018). The role of optimism in the relationship between job stress and depressive symptoms. Longitudinal findings from the German ageing survey. Journal of Affective Disorders, 241, 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.08.005
Ruggeri K., Garcia-Garzon E., Maguire Á., Matz S., Huppert F. A. (2020). Well-being is more than happiness and life satisfaction: A multidimensional analysis of 21 countries. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 192. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01423-y
Scheier M. F., Swanson J. D., Barlow M. A., Greenhouse J. B., Wrosch C., Tindle H. A. (2021). Optimism versus pessimism as predictors of physical health: A comprehensive reanalysis of dispositional optimism research. American Psychologist, 76(3), 529–548. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000666
Shen J., Zhang H., Zheng J. (2024). The impact of future self-continuity on college students' online learning engagement: A moderated mediation model. Psychology in the Schools, 61(4), 1694–1709. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.23133
Taber K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
Tan J. J. X., Kraus M. W., Carpenter N. C., Adler N. E. (2020). The association between objective and subjective socioeconomic status and subjective well-being: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 146(11), 970–1020. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000258
VanderWeele T. J., Johnson B. R. (2025). Multidimensional versus unidimensional approaches to well-being. Nature Human Behaviour, 9(5), 857–863. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02187-5
VanderWeele T. J., Johnson B. R., Bialowolski P. T., Bonhag R., Bradshaw M., Breedlove T., Case B., Chen Y., Chen Z. J., Counted V., Cowden R. G., de la Rosa P. A., Felton C., Fogleman A., Gibson C., Grigoropoulou N., Gundersen C., Jang S. J., Johnson K. A., Yancey G. (2025). The global flourishing study: Study profile and initial results on flourishing. Nature Mental Health, 3(6), 636–653. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-025-00423-5
VanderWeele T. J., Ouyang S. T. (2025). Religion and mental health: Is the relationship causal? Journal of Religion and Health, 64(3), 1890–1897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-025-02266-x
van de Vijver F. J. R., Leung K. (2021). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. In Fetvadjiev V. H., He J., Fontaine J. R. J. (Eds.), (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107415188
Vickers K. S., Vogeltanz N. D. (2000). Dispositional optimism as a predictor of depressive symptoms over time. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(2), 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00095-1
Xu H., Zhang C., Huang Y. (2023). Social trust, social capital, and subjective well-being of rural residents: Micro-empirical evidence based on the Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS). Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 49. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01532-1
Zeng K. J., Yu I. Y., Tso S. H., Yang M. X. (2023). Employees’ geographic social identity and group pro-environmental behaviors: Cross-cultural evidence from 45 countries. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(6), 3848–3860. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3341
Zhang W., Balloo K., Hosein A., Medland E. (2024). A scoping review of well-being measures: Conceptualisation and scales for overall well-being. BMC Psychology, 12(1), 585. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-02074-0
Zheng J., Shen J. (2025). Social comparisons for well-being: The role of power distance. Social Indicators Research, 178(2), 905–928. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-025-03531-y
Zheng J., Zhang T., Wang X. (2025). Estimating mechanisms linking relative income to self-rated health by multilevel modeling: The moderating role of healthcare access and quality index. BMC Public Health, 25(1), 1735. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-22783-4
Zheng W., Akaliyski P., Ma C., Xu Y. (2024). Cognitive flexibility and academic performance: Individual and cross-national patterns among adolescents in 57 countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 217, 112455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112455
Junxian Shen is a PhD candidate at Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences of Macao Polytechnic University, Macao, China. His research interests include cross-cultural psychology and positive psychology.
Dr. Albert Jiansong Zheng is a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Applied Social Sciences at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China. His research interests include cross-cultural psychology and health psychology.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
Albert Jiansong Zheng, Department of Applied Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, 11 Yuk Choi Road, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong 999077, China. Email: [email protected]
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in Cross-Cultural Research.
I can access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional access and free tools such as favourite journals, email alerts and saved searches.
