A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from American Psychologist
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Purpose in Life: A Resolution on the Definition, Conceptual
Model, and Optimal Measurement
Todd B. Kashdan
1
, Fallon R. Goodman
2
, Patrick E. McKnight
1
, Bradley Brown
3
, and Ruba Rum
3
1
Department of Psychology, George Mason University
2
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, George Washington University
3
Department of Psychology, University of South Florida
Theoretically, purpose serves as a basic dimension of healthy psychological functioning and an
important protective factor from psychopathology. Theory alone, however, is insufficient to
answer critical questions about human behavior and functioning; we require empirical evidence
that explores the parameters of purpose with respect to measurement, prediction, and
modification. Here, we provide empirically supported insights about how purpose can operate
as a beneficial outcome (e.g., marker of well-being), a predictor or mechanism that accounts for
benefits that a person derives (such as from an intervention), or a moderator that offers insight
into when benefits arise. Advancing the study of purpose requires careful consideration of how
purpose is conceptualized, manipulated, and measured across the lifespan. Our aim is to help
scientists understand, specify, and conduct high-quality studies of purpose in life.
Public Significance Statement
This article reviews and synthesizes what is known about the nature and benefits of human
beings possessing and working toward a purpose in life. We detail the various ways that a
purpose can serve a person and the specific ways that psychologists and other mental health
professionals can study and target this highly desirable psychological resource.
Keywords: purpose in life, meaning in life, goals, well-being, resilience
Supplemental materials: https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001223.supp
There are unique psychological and physical benefits
afforded by the possession and strength of a purpose in life.
Purpose in life figures prominently in how people cope with
negative life events, whether major stressors or daily hassles
(e.g., Hill et al., 2018;Kim et al., 2019). People with a
stronger life purpose tend to live longer (R. Cohen et al.,
2016) and show evidence of greater physiological health 10
years later (e.g., resting cardiovascular activity, metabolism,
inflammation; Zilioli et al., 2015). Notably, these findings
cannot be accounted for by demographics (race, sex, age,
socioeconomic status) or indicators of subjective well-being
(positive affect, negative affect, social relationship quality).
Research on purpose in life grew exponentially since the late
1990s (Wong, 2012), with a variety of theories, constructs,
and research methodologies. This variety, however, pro-
duced a fragmented body of evidence.
In the past decade, purpose researchers made significant
methodological improvements that affect not only their area
of inquiry but also the broader study of purpose—especially
on methodology issues that improve the strength, stability,
and generalizability of effects (e.g., priming purpose;
Burrow & Hill, 2013;refined assessment approaches;
Martela & Steger, 2023; multivariate examinations of
predictors; Nakamura et al., 2022; preregistered hypothesis
tests; Ratner et al., 2022). Below, we discuss advances in
research and practice with respect to defining, modeling,
and testing purpose in life. Our aim is to help others
contribute to a burgeoning area of inquiry with vast,
untapped potential.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This article was published Online First November 20, 2023.
Todd B. Kashdan https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6438-0485
The authors have no conflicts of interest. The authors thank Kerry Kelso,
Anthony Burrow, Jonathan Adler, Eiko Fried, and members of their research
labs for constructive feedback.
Todd B. Kashdan played a lead role in conceptualization, formal analysis,
investigation, methodology, project administration, supervision, writing–
original draft, and writing–review and editing. Fallon R. Goodman played a
supporting role in writing–original draft and writing–review and editing and
an equal role in conceptualization. Patrick E. McKnight played a supporting
role in writing–original draft and writing–review and editing. Bradley Brown
played a supporting role in writing–review and editing. Ruba Rum played a
supporting role in writing–review and editing.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Todd B.
Kashdan, Department of Psychology, George Mason University, Mail Stop
3F5, Fairfax, VA 22030, United States. Email: todd@toddkashdan.com
American Psychologist
© 2023 American Psychological Association 2024, Vol. 79, No. 6, 838–853
ISSN: 0003-066X https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001223
838