§ Methodology · LBL-FI v2.0
The science behind the LBL Flourishing Index.
The LBL Flourishing Index is an LBL-original 25-item assessment that measures 16 dimensions of a flourishing life — nine core dimensions that drive the composite score and archetype assignment, and seven contextual dimensions that add an awareness layer. The framework synthesizes evidence from the Global Flourishing Study (Wave 1, Nature Mental Health, April 2025), Ryff's Psychological Well-Being model (Ryff 1989), Snyder's Hope Theory (Snyder 1991), Ersner-Hershfield's future-self continuity work (2009), and contemporary research on mindfulness, autonomy, and time poverty.
This page explains how the 16 dimensions are organized, how each item is scored, how the composite and archetype are computed, and how your result is contextualized against the best global normative data currently available. The instrument is in active development; convergent-validity studies against the Diener Satisfaction With Life Scale and Ryff's PWB are planned but not yet complete.
What is flourishing?
Flourishing, in the framework used here, means living well across many interdependent life dimensions — not merely the absence of illness or the presence of happiness. The classical positive-psychology argument — that wellbeing is a composite, not a single thing — is now well-established: any assessment that reduces flourishing to one dimension (life satisfaction alone, or happiness alone, or income alone) systematically mismeasures real human welfare.
The LBL Flourishing Index builds on this composite tradition but extends it. Where the most widely cited short-form measure (Harvard's Flourishing Index, VanderWeele 2017) covers six domains in twelve items, the LBL instrument adds nine further facets — inner-life self-awareness, personal growth, autonomy, time freedom, environmental fit, prospective self-continuity & hope, integrity, service, and community — drawn from research traditions that the six-domain framework does not include. The result is 16 dimensions across two tiers: 9 core (which drive the composite) and 7 contextual (which inform but do not score the headline number).
A person may be flourishing if their life is going well across the various spheres of their existence. The goal of assessment is not to rank people, but to help individuals identify where their own life is most and least resourced — and to make that pattern legible enough to act on.
LBL-FI framing — synthesizing the positive-psychology tradition (Seligman, Ryff, VanderWeele) with the prospective-self-continuity literature (Ersner-Hershfield, Hershfield, Bartels).
The 16 dimensions and their items.
The 16 dimensions are organized into two tiers. Tier 1 (core) consists of 9 dimensions measured with 18 items — two items per dimension. Tier 2 (contextual) consists of 7 dimensions measured with one item each. All items use a 0–10 scale; no items are reverse-coded — higher is always better. The wording below is LBL-original.
Tier 1 dimensions drive the composite, archetype assignment, and Growth Edge identification. Tier 2 dimensions appear on the compass strip as awareness signals but do not directly affect the composite — they are facets worth noticing, not facets worth optimizing for a number.
Tier 1 · Core dimensions
9 dimensions × 2 items = 18 items · drives composite, archetype, growth edge
i. Joy & Life Satisfaction
Tier 1 · Subjective wellbeing
Subjective wellbeing — both daily affect and global life satisfaction — is the most familiar dimension of flourishing. In longitudinal cohort research it is both an output of the other dimensions and a forward predictor of health, productivity, and longevity.
Item 1 (q1)
"How often do you feel a quiet sense of contentment with your life as it is?"
0 = Never → 10 = Almost always
Item 2 (q2)
"When you wake up in the morning, how much do you look forward to the day ahead?"
0 = Not at all → 10 = Very much
ii. Mental Health
Tier 1 · Emotional regulation
Mental health here is measured as steadiness and recoverability, not the absence of any negative emotion. Mood stability and post-stress recovery are the two facets most predictive of long-term psychological resilience in clinical and community samples.
Item 3 (q3)
"Over the past two weeks, how steady has your mood been from day to day?"
0 = Very unsteady → 10 = Very steady
Item 4 (q4)
"When stress arises, how well do you tend to bounce back?"
0 = Not at all → 10 = Very well
iii. Inner Life & Self-Awareness
Tier 1 · Self-knowledge
Self-awareness — knowing your own emotional patterns and pausing before acting from them — is a dimension that most short-form wellbeing instruments do not measure. It is, however, robustly correlated with relationship quality, leadership effectiveness, and mindfulness-based outcomes.
Item 5 (q5)
"How well would you say you know your own emotional patterns — what tends to upset you, what tends to soothe you?"
0 = Not well at all → 10 = Very well
Item 6 (q6)
"How often do you pause to notice what you're feeling, before deciding what to do?"
0 = Never → 10 = Almost always
iv. Personal Growth
Tier 1 · Psychological growth
Drawn from Ryff's Psychological Well-Being model, personal growth captures both retrospective change (how much have I grown) and prospective openness (am I still revisable). It is one of the most age-stable dimensions in adult samples — and one of the strongest predictors of subjective vitality.
Item 7 (q7)
"How clearly can you see ways you have grown or changed over the past year?"
0 = Not at all → 10 = Very clearly
Item 8 (q8)
"How open are you to changing your mind when you encounter good evidence against your current beliefs?"
0 = Not open at all → 10 = Very open
v. Physical Health & Vitality
Tier 1 · Embodied wellbeing
Physical health is measured here through subjective vitality and embodied trust rather than objective health metrics. The lived experience of having energy and feeling allied with one's own body predicts adherence to health behaviors and overall life satisfaction independent of measured biomarkers.
Item 9 (q9)
"How much physical energy do you typically have through your day?"
0 = Very little → 10 = A great deal
Item 10 (q10)
"How often does your body feel like an ally rather than something you're managing or fighting?"
0 = Never → 10 = Almost always
vi. Meaning & Purpose
Tier 1 · Eudaimonic wellbeing
Meaning and purpose are the most direct expression of Aristotelian eudaimonia in modern wellbeing science. They are also the hardest dimensions to cultivate from scratch and the most protective against the corrosive effects of chronic adversity — which is why they receive heavy weight in nearly every validated flourishing measure.
Item 11 (q11)
"When you think about how you spend your time, how often does it feel aligned with what genuinely matters to you?"
0 = Never → 10 = Almost always
Item 12 (q12)
"How often do you feel your day's effort connects to something larger than just today?"
0 = Never → 10 = Almost always
vii. Prospective Self-Continuity & Hope
Tier 1 · Future-self relationship
Prospective self-continuity (PSC&H) measures the affective connection you have to your future selves — both the near-future you (5 years out) and the end-of-life you. Drawn from Ersner-Hershfield's future-self research and Snyder's Hope Theory, this is the dimension that drives the animated trajectory chart on the results page, and the dimension that triggers the Adrift care-aware archetype when scores are particularly low.
Item 13 (q13)
"When you imagine your life five years from now, how strong is your sense that things will be better than they are today?"
0 = Not at all → 10 = Very strong
Item 14 (q14)
"When you imagine looking back at your life at its end, how confident are you that you will have lived a life worth living?"
0 = Not confident at all → 10 = Very confident
viii. Close Relationships
Tier 1 · Social connection
Close relationships — the experience of being seen, understood, and reliably supported by people you trust — is the single strongest predictor of late-life flourishing in the Harvard Study of Adult Development, the longest-running longitudinal study of adult wellbeing.
Item 15 (q15)
"When you think about your closest relationships, how seen and understood do you feel by the people in them?"
0 = Not at all → 10 = Very much
Item 16 (q16)
"If something difficult happened to you this week, how confident are you that someone you trust would be there for you?"
0 = Not confident at all → 10 = Very confident
ix. Material Security
Tier 1 · Instrumental conditions
Material security is measured here as the subjective experience of sufficiency rather than absolute income. Both items index whether basic needs — housing, food, healthcare — feel covered, which research shows is a stronger predictor of wellbeing than raw income above subsistence thresholds.
Item 17 (q17)
"How well do your financial resources cover what you actually need to live a stable life?"
0 = Not at all → 10 = Very well
Item 18 (q18)
"When you think about your basic security — housing, food, healthcare — how secure does it feel?"
0 = Not secure at all → 10 = Very secure
Tier 2 · Contextual dimensions
7 dimensions × 1 item = 7 items · awareness layer · displayed on compass strip
x. Integrity
Tier 2 · Values alignment
Integrity here means the alignment between your stated values and your daily behavior. It is a contextual dimension because the score reflects circumstance as much as character — a person in a constraining situation can score lower than their values would predict.
Item 19 (q19)
"How often do your actions match the values you hold?"
0 = Never → 10 = Almost always
xi. Service
Tier 2 · Other-orientation
Service measures the frequency of small acts that improve another person's life. It is a contextual dimension because the meaningful unit is the practice, not the magnitude — a daily small act of kindness scores the same as occasional grand gestures.
Item 20 (q20)
"How often do you do something that makes another person's life better — even in a small way?"
0 = Never → 10 = Almost always
xii. Community
Tier 2 · Belonging beyond intimates
Community is the belonging that exists beyond close relationships — to a group, place, faith community, or chosen tribe. It is measured separately from Close Relationships because the two often diverge: people with strong intimate ties can still feel community-isolated, and vice versa. This item is personalized by religious belonging in the suggestion bank.
Item 21 (q21)
"Beyond your closest people, how much do you feel you belong to a group, place, or community?"
0 = Not at all → 10 = Very much
xiii. Autonomy
Tier 2 · Self-determination
Autonomy, as defined in Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan), is the felt freedom to act on your own judgment in the choices that matter. It is one of three basic psychological needs (alongside competence and relatedness) whose satisfaction is causally linked to wellbeing.
Item 22 (q22)
"In the choices that matter most to you, how free do you feel to act on your own judgment?"
0 = Not free at all → 10 = Very free
xiv. Work
Tier 2 · Daily engagement
Work here means daily occupation — whether that is paid employment, caregiving, study, or another primary activity. The measure is engagement, not productivity: how alive the activity feels, not how much it produces.
Item 23 (q23)
"When you think about your daily work or main activity, how engaging does it feel?"
0 = Not engaging → 10 = Very engaging
xv. Time Freedom
Tier 2 · Discretionary time
Time freedom — having enough time for what matters — is one of the strongest predictors of wellbeing in contemporary high-income societies, often outranking income above subsistence thresholds. Time poverty (perceived lack of discretionary time) has emerged as a major modern risk factor.
Item 24 (q24)
"How often do you feel you have enough time for what matters to you?"
0 = Never → 10 = Almost always
xvi. Environmental Fit
Tier 2 · Person-context match
Environmental fit measures whether your everyday surroundings — home, workspace, neighborhood — support or fight the life you want to live. Drawn from person-environment fit research, this is the contextual dimension that often explains why two people with similar internal resources flourish differently.
Item 25 (q25)
"How well do your everyday surroundings — home, workspace, neighborhood — support the life you want to live?"
0 = They fight against it → 10 = They support it
How your score is calculated.
LBL-FI v2.0 scoring is deliberately legible — arithmetic operations only, no opaque weightings, no reverse-coded items. The pipeline runs in four stages.
Stage 1 · Dimension scores
For each Tier 1 dimension (d1–d9), the two items are averaged: dim_score = (item_A + item_B) / 2. For each Tier 2 dimension (t1–t7), the single item is the dimension score. All dimension scores therefore fall between 0 and 10.
Stage 2 · Tier averages
The Tier 1 average is the unweighted mean of the 9 core dimension scores: tier1_avg = mean(d1, d2, …, d9). The Tier 2 average is the unweighted mean of the 7 contextual dimension scores: tier2_avg = mean(t1, t2, …, t7).
Stage 3 · Displayed composite (80/20 weighted)
The headline composite shown on the results page weights Tier 1 at 0.8 and Tier 2 at 0.2: composite = (tier1_avg × 0.8) + (tier2_avg × 0.2). The weighting reflects that Tier 1 dimensions are the load-bearing components of flourishing while Tier 2 dimensions are contextual modifiers. Both tiers inform the composite, but the core dimensions dominate.
Stage 4 · Variance for archetype assignment
Archetype assignment uses the unweighted Tier 1 average (not the 80/20 composite) together with the standard deviation (σ) across the 9 Tier 1 dimensions: σ = sqrt(mean((d_i − tier1_avg)²)). The combination of magnitude (tier1_avg) and spread (σ) lets the tool distinguish, for example, a person who is uniformly thriving from one who is spiking on one dimension while the others lag.
What is empirically grounded vs. what is LBL judgment
Several parameters in the scoring pipeline are LBL working values rather than empirically derived constants. Stating this explicitly so the reader is not misled into thinking everything is data-driven:
- The 80/20 Tier 1 / Tier 2 composite weighting reflects our judgment that core dimensions are load-bearing and contextual dimensions are modifiers; it is not derived from a published factor-analytic fit.
- The archetype σ thresholds (1.2 and 1.8) were chosen to separate "even" from "spiked" patterns in a way that maps cleanly onto observed real-world response shapes; they are not, e.g., quantile cuts of any specific empirical σ distribution.
- The trajectory model weights (5-year projection: 50% composite + 30% hope + 20% country-age drift; end-of-life projection: 30% composite + 50% hope + 20% drift) reflect the literature on hope as a strong predictor of future SWB (Snyder; Diener; Lucas), but the exact weights are LBL judgment and have not been validated against longitudinal data.
These values will be revised when convergent-validity and longitudinal data are available. The methodology elsewhere uses well-established constructs and computations (means, standard deviations, country-level normative comparison); the items listed here are the parameters where reasonable researchers might choose different values.
Global normative benchmarks.
Your Flourishing Age is computed by matching your FI score to country-and-age-bracket averages derived from the Global Flourishing Study's 2025 Nature Mental Health release. The table below shows the normative Flourishing Index averages used for age-matching in this tool — constructed from GFS Wave 1 country-level reports together with published age-curve patterns. Values are approximate and intended for orienting context, not precision benchmarking; LBL-FI scoring is not identical to the 6-domain GFS instrument, and direct comparison is loose.
Flourishing Index averages (0–10) by country × age bracket — Global Flourishing Study, 2025
| Country |
18–29 |
30–39 |
40–49 |
50–59 |
60–69 |
70+ |
| Indonesia | 7.8 | 7.9 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 8.1 | 8.1 |
| Philippines | 7.4 | 7.4 | 7.5 | 7.6 | 7.7 | 7.7 |
| Mexico | 7.3 | 7.4 | 7.5 | 7.6 | 7.7 | 7.8 |
| Brazil | 7.2 | 7.3 | 7.4 | 7.5 | 7.7 | 7.7 |
| Tanzania | 7.0 | 7.1 | 7.2 | 7.3 | 7.4 | 7.5 |
| Nigeria | 6.9 | 7.0 | 7.1 | 7.2 | 7.3 | 7.4 |
| Israel | 6.8 | 7.0 | 7.1 | 7.2 | 7.4 | 7.5 |
| Kenya | 6.8 | 6.9 | 7.0 | 7.1 | 7.2 | 7.3 |
| India | 6.8 | 6.9 | 7.0 | 7.1 | 7.3 | 7.4 |
| Egypt | 6.7 | 6.8 | 6.9 | 7.0 | 7.1 | 7.2 |
| Argentina | 6.6 | 6.7 | 6.8 | 7.0 | 7.3 | 7.4 |
| China | 6.5 | 6.7 | 6.8 | 7.0 | 7.2 | 7.3 |
| Germany | 6.4 | 6.6 | 6.7 | 7.0 | 7.3 | 7.5 |
| South Africa | 6.4 | 6.5 | 6.6 | 6.7 | 6.9 | 7.0 |
| United States | 6.36 | 6.7 | 6.9 | 7.2 | 7.68 | 7.8 |
| Australia | 6.3 | 6.6 | 6.7 | 7.1 | 7.5 | 7.7 |
| Canada | 6.3 | 6.6 | 6.7 | 7.1 | 7.5 | 7.7 |
| Sweden | 6.3 | 6.5 | 6.7 | 7.0 | 7.4 | 7.6 |
| Spain | 6.2 | 6.4 | 6.6 | 6.9 | 7.2 | 7.4 |
| United Kingdom | 6.2 | 6.5 | 6.6 | 7.0 | 7.4 | 7.6 |
| Poland | 6.0 | 6.2 | 6.4 | 6.6 | 6.8 | 7.0 |
| Turkey | 5.8 | 6.0 | 6.2 | 6.5 | 6.8 | 7.0 |
| Japan | 5.4 | 5.6 | 5.8 | 6.1 | 6.5 | 6.8 |
Green highlights the global high (Indonesia). Amber highlights the global low (Japan, and US 18–29 — the widely-reported young-adult finding). Values between published anchor points are interpolated linearly.
One of the most striking findings from the Global Flourishing Study is that the classical U-shape of wellbeing — where young adults and older adults both flourish more than those in midlife — has collapsed. In the 2025 data, young adults (18–29) report the lowest flourishing across nearly every country studied, and the curve now rises steadily with age.
See Global Flourishing Study — Initial Findings, Nature Mental Health, April 2025.
How your Flourishing Age is computed.
Your Flourishing Age is a communicative device — not a clinical measure — that answers the question: "At what age would someone in my country typically flourish at the level I'm currently flourishing at?"
The algorithm takes your displayed composite (the 80/20 weighted score) and finds the age bracket in your country's normative data whose average is closest to your score. It then reports the midpoint of that bracket (so "40–49" becomes age 45). The gap between that age and your actual age is reported as "years ahead" or "years behind" — descriptive, not diagnostic.
The normative data comes from the Global Flourishing Study Wave 1 (Nature Mental Health, April 2025). Because the GFS measures a 6-domain instrument and LBL-FI measures 16 dimensions, the comparison is approximate — both are 0–10 scales centered on similar wellbeing constructs, but they are not identical instruments. Treat the Flourishing Age as orienting context, not as a precise metric.
Because the direction of the normative curve now tilts steadily upward with age in most countries, a younger adult scoring near their country's older-adult average is, in the language of the data, flourishing unusually well for their cohort. A midlife adult scoring near the young-adult average is flourishing below the typical trajectory for their peer group.
How your archetype is matched.
Archetypes are pattern-based summaries of your 9-dimension Tier 1 profile — intended to help you recognize your flourishing shape at a glance, not just your flourishing height. They are descriptive heuristics, not diagnostic categories. The matching logic uses two inputs: the Tier 1 average (your overall level) and the standard deviation σ across the 9 dimensions (your evenness vs. spikiness).
The decision is sequential — the first rule that matches wins, so Adrift always takes priority as a care-aware safety routing:
The Adrift
Trigger: d7 (PSC&H) ≤ 3.0 OR q14 (end-of-life worth) ≤ 2
Care-aware override. Assigned when prospective self-continuity & hope is particularly low, or when you indicate you do not currently expect to look back on a life worth living. This is the only archetype that displaces other matching rules. When assigned, the results page surfaces 988 (Suicide & Crisis Lifeline) and Crisis Text Line above the rest of the assessment.
The Anchored
Trigger: tier1_avg ≥ 7.5 AND σ ≤ 1.2
Strong and even performance across the 9 core dimensions. No single dimension is significantly above or below the others. Anchored is the most stable flourishing pattern — high and broad, without spikes.
The Thriving
Trigger: tier1_avg ≥ 7.5 AND 1.2 < σ ≤ 1.8
High overall flourishing with moderate variation — strong in most dimensions, mid-range in one or two. The most common pattern at the high end of the distribution. Thriving people typically know which dimensions are quieter for them and can name them when asked.
The Spiked
Trigger: tier1_avg ≥ 7.0 AND σ > 1.8
High overall flourishing carried by clear outliers — usually one or two dimensions sit visibly above the rest, or one or two visibly below. Strategic strength with identifiable drag. Often the most actionable archetype: the lagging dimension is right there to see.
The Holding
Trigger: tier1_avg 5.0–7.4
Mid-range overall — most dimensions in the 5–7 zone, neither thriving nor languishing. The modal pattern globally per GFS Wave 1. Holding is not stagnation: it is the steady state from which both upward and downward movement happens, and the pattern most responsive to targeted intervention.
The Strained
Trigger: tier1_avg < 5.0
Multiple dimensions below typical ranges. This is a real signal — GFS Wave 1 found this pattern in meaningful numbers, especially among young adults. Distinguished from Adrift by the absence of acute hope/worth flags, but the suggestions emphasize support and connection over performance.
What this assessment doesn't capture.
Intellectual honesty requires naming the limitations of any short-form instrument. The LBL Flourishing Index is a 25-item self-report measure across 16 dimensions, and while it is grounded in well-established research traditions, it has well-known constraints you should be aware of when interpreting your result.
§ Known limitations of this measure
- Self-report bias. Your result reflects how you currently perceive your life, not some external measurement of it. Mood, recent events, and self-perception norms all affect scores.
- Point-in-time snapshot. Flourishing fluctuates across weeks and seasons. A single assessment captures a moment, not a trend. Longitudinal use (re-taking every 3–6 months) is more informative than a single score.
- Not a clinical instrument. The FI is a wellbeing assessment, not a diagnostic tool. It does not replace mental health evaluation by a licensed professional. The care-aware notice at the top of your results is a prompt, not a diagnosis.
- Cross-cultural calibration is imperfect. Response styles vary across cultures — some populations use the middle of the scale more, others the extremes. The normative benchmarks are the best-available global data, but country averages remain averages.
- Archetypes are heuristics. The six archetypes are pattern summaries, not categories of people. Your profile may fit one label better today and a different one in six months.
- Dimension boundaries are imperfect. Real human flourishing spills across the 16 lines drawn here. A thriving friendship is also meaning. A vocational calling is also integrity. The 16-dimension map is useful but not ontologically precise.