PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 17, 2026Scientific Reports0 citationsOpen Access

A longitudinal outcome-wide assessment of the association of life balance with flourishing: a 2-year cross-national analysis of 22 countries in the global flourishing study

TLTim LomasRPR. Noah PadgettJRJames L. Ritchie-Dunham

Key Points

  • This study aims to examine the association between life balance and flourishing over a two-year period in multiple countries.
  • Analyzed data from the Global Flourishing Study with a total of 207,919 participants at Wave 1 and 128,868 at Wave 2.
  • Conducted multivariate regression analyses in each country, using random-effects meta-analyses to pool cross-country estimates.
  • Two models were used for analysis: one controlling for demographic variables and another for extensive contemporaneous variables.
  • Balance showed a small but significant association with flourishing, with an effect size of 0.04 for the flourishing index under the conservative model.
  • Effect sizes for flourishing varied across countries, with values ranging from 0.11 in Hong Kong and Japan to -0.03 in mainland China.
  • Variability in effects suggests that the importance of life balance for flourishing is not uniform across different cultural contexts.

Abstract

Abstract Despite increasing interest in the idea of life balance, to date there appear to be no longitudinal studies examining this important aspect of human flourishing. Addressing this oversight, the current paper presents a foundational mapping study analyzing a life balance item (“In general, how often are the various aspects of your life in balance?”) in the Global Flourishing Study (GFS), a panel study investigating an extensive range of predictors and outcomes of flourishing in 22 diverse countries. We explore the association of balance at Wave 1 (207,919 participants) with 55 other flourishing-related outcomes at Wave 2 (128,868, a retention rate of 62%). For each outcome we conducted a multivariate regression analysis within each country (with random-effects meta-analyses then used to pool estimates across countries), regressing each Wave 2 outcome on Wave 1 balance, using two models, which could be understood as demarcating the plausible upper and lower bounds of the effect respectively: model 1 is less conservative, controlling for demographic and childhood variables only, whereas model 2 controls for seven principal components extracted from all contemporaneous Wave 1 variables. Even under the more conservative model 2 (the “lower bound”), which risks controlling for too much, balance had a small but significant association with many aspects of flourishing, including an effect size of 0.04 with a six-domain flourishing index at the heart of the GFS (which situates balance at joint 25th when considered relative to all 68 wave 1 exposures in a predictor-wide perspective, even if methodological caution means we cannot interpret this as a substantive hierarchy). In addition to its longitudinal nature, another strength of the GFS is its multi-national design, which revealed considerable variation in effect sizes, which for the flourishing index ranged from 0.11 in Hong Kong and Japan to -0.03 inmainland China. Thus, while balance seems important for flourishing, this effect is unevenly distributed, both across outcomes and countries, though more research is required to delve into why.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Lomas et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a095af37880e6d24efe0c44https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-47553-z
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper