The live music industry is booming. Even as ticket prices have climbed sharply and consumers face real cost of living pressures, attendance at concerts, music festivals, and live events continues to grow with roughly seven in ten eventgoers saying they prioritize experiences over material goods. As I have written about in previous newsletters, people across generations, and especially teens and young adults, are increasingly hungry for real-world experiences that connect them to others and to the physical world around them. Live music is one of the most powerful expressions of that impulse, and new research helps explain why.

Live music does something to us that recorded music, for all its accessibility and convenience, simply cannot replicate. It is not just about the music. It is about what happens when human beings gather together to share a musical experience. A recent paper published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin by Nicole Koefler and colleagues helps explain what that something is and why it matters for our psychological health.

Specifically, the researchers focused on a concept called collective effervescence, a term sociologist Emile Durkheim used to describe the psychological experience of group religious rituals. Collective effervescence refers to the simultaneous experience of feeling deeply connected to the people around you and sensing that something special, even sacred, is occurring.

In an initial study, participants were given a brief description of collective effervescence and asked to recall a group event where they experienced it, alongside a separate event where they felt nothing particularly special or sacred. The researchers asked participants to rate the degree to which music was present and central to each event. They found that music featured far more prominently in the collective effervescence events than in those where people felt nothing special or sacred.

In subsequent studies, the researchers recruited people who had recently attended live music events and assessed how their experiences related to their wellbeing. The pattern was consistent. Greater collective effervescence during the event was associated with a stronger sense of meaning in life in the moment and greater happiness a week after the show ended. It was also the strongest predictor of these outcomes, outperforming other intense concert experiences like awe. And when the researchers looked at what drove collective effervescence in the first place, feeling a bond with the artist, immersing yourself in the lyrics, and attending with friends all played a role.

As you might expect from an existential psychologist, I think it is crucial to emphasize the importance of the finding on meaning in life. Meaning is a fundamental psychological need, and people who have a strong sense of meaning in life report better mental and physical health, greater resilience, and higher life satisfaction. They are also more motivated to pursue their goals. Thus, attending a live music event where you feel that sense of shared connection with those around you can support your psychological wellbeing in ways that go far beyond a fun night out.

The real-world renaissance I mentioned at the outset is not just a random consumer trend. It is people seeking more authentic, tangible, in-person experiences to counterbalance the digital saturation of modern life. Live music is one powerful expression of that shift, alongside the growth of independent bookstores, boutique fitness studios, board game cafes, and crafting communities. To be clear, people are not abandoning digital technology. They are recognizing that technology alone cannot meet all of their psychological and social needs.

I think these findings also have important implications for mental health. Rather than turning inward and dwelling on our struggles, which our current culture too often encourages, we tend to do better psychologically when we direct our energy outward, into activities that connect us with others and with something larger than ourselves. This is what I call the outward action approach to mental health. Live music is a great example of outward action. It gets you out of your own head. It puts you in a physical space with other people who share your passion. It reminds you that you are part of something bigger.

This also matters at the societal level. One of the things I find most encouraging about the live music trend is that it creates spaces where people from different backgrounds, neighborhoods, and political persuasions can share something meaningful together. In a cultural moment defined by political polarization, digital fragmentation, and cultural pessimism, that kind of in-person shared experience is a vital resource. For example, research suggests that collective effervescence can help us build social cohesion and remind us of our common humanity.

We are fortunate to live in an era when so much music is available to us at the touch of a button. But no matter how technologically sophisticated our lives become, we remain physical, social, and spiritual creatures who need to gather together in person and share experiences that connect us to one another and to something that transcends the ordinary. So the next time your favorite artist comes to town, or a local band is playing at a nearby venue, go. Bring a friend. Lose yourself in the music. The science says it will do you good, and it just might do the world a little good too.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

Much of the current conversation about social media treats the digital world and the real world as if they are locked in a zero sum battle. Online life is cast as a retreat from real connection and community. And the growing interest in analog experiences and pre-digital culture is often read as a sign that people want to go backward, as if the only way to reclaim our wellbeing is to step away from digital life and return to how things used to be.

I understand the instinct. There are real concerns about how these platforms are designed, how they shape our attention, and how they can crowd out the people and experiences right in front of us. But digital and real-world engagement are not inherently in conflict. The two can work together, and each is often stronger when it does.

Consider how many real-world gatherings now begin with a digital connection. People discover local running clubs through Strava and Instagram. They find hobby groups through Reddit threads and Facebook communities. They organize neighborhood events through group chats. They learn about farmers markets, live music, and volunteer opportunities through posts someone shared. In each case, the digital world is doing exactly what a healthy social tool should do. It is helping people find each other and then meet up in person. The reverse is also true. When we meet people in person or show up at events in our community, social media can help us stay connected afterward. Used this way, digital and physical life reinforce rather than compete with each other.

Gen Z offers a great illustration of this. In a previous newsletter, I wrote about how the real world is making a comeback, with young people driving the resurgence of analog experiences like vinyl records, film cameras, board games, independent bookstores, live music, and in-person community events. Critics sometimes read this as a retreat from modern life, as if young people have given up on the present and want to go backward. But that is not what is happening. Gen Z is not rejecting the digital world. They are selectively and creatively borrowing from earlier eras to build something more balanced. You can buy physical media and still utilize streaming services, and that is what many are doing.

Social media is ironically helping drive these retro trends. It is how young people are learning about retro products, styles, and activities, sharing them with friends, and building communities around them. A vintage film photography account on Instagram inspires someone to pick up a used camera. An Instagram reel about sourdough inspires someone to start baking and then trade starters with a neighbor. A group chat turns a shared interest in board games into a standing Friday night. The digital and the analog are working together, not against each other.

And despite social media’s reputation for being toxic, research shows that only a small number of users are responsible for most of the harmful content we see. As I discussed in a previous newsletter, Americans dramatically overestimate how common harmful online behavior actually is. Participants in one study guessed that more than 40% of active Reddit users had posted toxic content. The real figure is 3%. And in our research at the Human Flourishing Lab, we find that most Americans report positive online experiences, feeling connected to communities, capable of civil discourse, and comfortable being themselves. These kinds of experiences can help inspire the openness and goodwill that motivate people to go out and connect with others offline.

None of this means that the concerns about social media are imagined. There are real problems to address. But the answer is not to treat digital and physical life as enemies, or to assume that a richer real-world life requires going backward. The answer is to recognize that our digital and physical lives can work together when we approach them that way.

This positive sum approach starts with us. It means using social media as a launchpad rather than a destination. It means letting what we find online motivate us to show up in the real world, and letting what we experience in the real world give us something meaningful to share online. It means being thoughtful about which platforms and accounts deserve our time, and which do not.

Social media companies would be wise to adopt this approach as well. In our research, we found that 58% of Gen Z believe new technologies are more likely to drive people apart than bring them together, and 75% are concerned about social media’s impact on mental health. If platforms come to feel like an assault on real-world life rather than a complement to it, people will eventually leave those platforms. Humans are physical beings. We need face-to-face connection, shared physical spaces, and hands-on experiences to thrive. In the long run, platforms that help us get more of those things are more likely to succeed. Platforms that try to replace them are more likely to fail.

The positive sum approach is not automatic. It depends on how we engage. So each of us should ask whether our social media engagement pushes us toward or away from other people. Does it support openness, trust, and hope, or defensiveness, suspicion, and cynicism? Does it inspire us to engage with the real world and the people in it, or does it leave us more isolated from both?

Digital and real life don’t need to be at war. They can work together to improve our wellbeing, relationships, and society. But only if we use them that way.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

I recently saw Project Hail Mary and loved it. I was a big fan of the book so I was excited to see it on the big screen, and it did not disappoint. It is science fiction but at its core it is an inspiring story driven by hope, resilience, and an unlikely friendship. And you do not need to be a sci-fi fan to be moved by it. If you haven’t seen the movie or read the book, I highly recommend both.

More than ever, I find myself drawn to stories of people overcoming barriers, beating the odds, and achieving something many thought was impossible. I am generally a pretty hopeful person to begin with, but given all the cynicism and pessimism that seems to dominate so much of our culture right now, I really appreciate it when I come across a story that recognizes human potential and what is possible when we put agency into action.

But stories like these are more than entertainment. As I have discussed in previous newsletters, inspiring media can motivate us to act. Research shows that the vast majority of Americans report being moved or inspired by films, and the more inspiring media people consume, the more inclined they are to engage in prosocial behavior. But this kind of media may not only help us do good for others. New research suggests it is also good for our own psychological health.

A new study published in Psychology of Popular Media tested what happens when people are assigned to watch short inspiring videos every day for a week. In a four-week experiment with over 1,000 U.S. adults, participants were randomly assigned to watch inspiring videos depicting people overcoming adversity, watch comedic videos, engage in guided meditation using a popular app, use their phones as they normally would during a break, or serve as a no-media control group. Each daily dose was only about five minutes. The researchers then measured stress levels up to ten days after the intervention ended.

Compared to a no-media control group, the inspiring videos reduced stress. So did meditation. Comedy did not have the same lasting effect. Neither did casual phone scrolling. Perhaps most notably, the inspiring media produced stress-relieving benefits comparable to meditation, a popular and well-supported strategy for managing stress.

Why did inspiring media work? The researchers were specifically interested in the role of hope. Previous research identifies hope as a psychological resource that helps people set goals, take action, and navigate difficult circumstances. The researchers selected inspiring videos featuring people overcoming adversity because these kinds of stories are most likely to evoke hope. And that is exactly what happened. Participants who watched the inspiring videos reported feeling more hopeful after each viewing, and that hope appears to have been the key mechanism driving the stress reduction. Meditation also reduced stress through hope, which is consistent with research finding that meditation can boost hope.

So inspiring media motivates us to engage with others and do good in the world. And it also reduces our own stress. Both of these findings are especially relevant right now given that a major source of stress in our country is the feeling that we are divided and disconnected from one another. The most recent Stress in America survey from the American Psychological Association found that 62% of U.S. adults say societal division is a significant source of stress and three quarters say they are more stressed about the future of the nation than they used to be. Research on hope finds that hopeful people are more trusting, more tolerant, more forgiving, and more motivated to serve their communities. Hope does not just reduce stress. It moves us to connect with others in ways that can help bridge the very divisions causing so much stress.

We need more inspiring stories in our culture. Not because they offer a feel-good escape from reality but because the evidence increasingly shows that they build the psychological resources that help us manage stress, take meaningful action, and contribute to the wellbeing of those around us.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

I read a lot of research papers as part of my job at the Archbridge Institute and in preparation for this newsletter. Every now and then I come across one that really brings a smile to my face because it manages to be both informative and fun. The research that inspired this week’s newsletter is one of those. It involves Batman, one of my favorite superheroes.

A team of researchers at the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore in Milan conducted a clever field study on the city’s metro system. They wanted to know whether an unexpected event could increase prosocial behavior. To find out, they had a female experimenter wearing a prosthetic belly to appear pregnant board the train while an observer recorded whether any seated passengers offered her their seat. In the control condition, that was it. In the experimental condition, another experimenter dressed as Batman entered the train from a different door. There was no interaction between Batman and the pregnant woman. He was just there, riding the metro as if the Batmobile was in the shop.

Does having Batman present increase prosocial behavior? It appears so. The researchers found that when Batman was not present, passengers offered their seats about 38% of the time. When Batman was present, that number jumped to 67%.

So what is going on here? The researchers proposed several possible explanations, including the idea that any unexpected presence, not Batman specifically, could disrupt passengers’ automatic routines and make them more attentive to their surroundings. But I think the more compelling explanation, one the researchers also highlighted, is that Batman served as a prosocial cue. Batman is not just an unusual sight. He is a universally recognized symbol of heroism, courage, and protection.

Of course, this is a single study conducted in one city on one transit system, and the researchers themselves acknowledge several limitations. For example, because the study did not include a non-heroic comparison figure, we cannot fully separate the effect of disruption from the effect of superhero symbolism. Interestingly, among those who offered their seat in the Batman condition, 44% reported that they had not even seen him.

But even with those caveats, this study suggests that the prosocial cues around us may inspire us to act on our better instincts. Previous research has found, for example, that exposure to superhero imagery can inspire people to think and act more prosocially.

This connects to ideas I have explored in previous newsletters. When I wrote about the motivational power of movies, I discussed research showing that the vast majority of Americans report being touched, moved, or inspired by films, and that consuming more of this kind of inspiring media is associated with greater prosocial behavior. Laboratory studies back this up. After watching an inspiring video clip, people were more willing to volunteer and spent more time helping. Stories of courage, sacrifice, and kindness do not just entertain us. They appear to activate something in us that makes us more inclined to help.

I have also written about why hero stories resonate so deeply. We are drawn to narratives that showcase inner strength, compassion, and the determination to do what is right, even at great personal cost. These are the qualities that elevate characters like Batman beyond their gadgets and costumes. And these are the qualities that, when modeled in stories and symbolized in our shared spaces, may encourage us to act a little more heroically in our own lives.

A central theme of my work on mental health and meaning in life is that we need to spend less time fixated on our own psychological states and more time engaging in activities that benefit others. As I have discussed in previous newsletters, meaning is deeply social and agentic in nature. We feel most meaningful when we are making a positive difference in the lives of others. And meaning is itself one of our most powerful mental health resources.

Prosocial cues in our environment may be one way to encourage this kind of outward focus. Imagine public art that celebrates everyday kindness, community events organized around shared goals, and media that highlights human goodness and cooperation rather than cynicism and division. These are not just nice ideas. The evidence suggests they may help bring out the best in people.

We do not need a real-life Batman patrolling our cities to build a more prosocial culture. But we might benefit from finding more creative ways to surround people with reminders of their capacity for kindness, generosity, and courage.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

Nostalgia is often portrayed as an enemy of progress. The assumption is that those who are drawn to the past are resistant to change, suspicious of new ideas, and pessimistic about the future. But people who think this appear not to be familiar with what over 25 years of research actually shows about nostalgia. And they may be confusing nostalgia with declinism.

Nostalgia is a warm sentimentality toward the past that draws on what we find meaningful, whether that is our own cherished memories or an appreciation for the ideas, traditions, and ways of life from earlier eras. Declinism is the belief that things are getting worse, that society is deteriorating, and that the best days are behind us. Both involve looking backward. But they have very different effects on how people think, feel, and behave.

Declinism makes people dissatisfied, socially disconnected, demotivated, and pessimistic about the future. A large body of research shows that nostalgia does the opposite. As I have written about in previous newsletters and in my book Past Forward, nostalgia increases psychological wellbeing, self-esteem, self-confidence, gratitude, inspiration, goal motivation, openness, and creativity. It makes people feel more connected to others and more optimistic about the future. It boosts empathy and prosocial behavior. Nostalgia also increases a sense of meaning in life, which I believe is a crucial component of a progress mindset because it drives people to want to have a positive impact on the world.

It is true that people who are dissatisfied with aspects of present-day life often become more nostalgic. But nostalgia is not the source of their dissatisfaction. It is a response to it. And rather than deepening their frustration, nostalgia helps resolve it by reconnecting people with the meaningful experiences that give them the confidence and motivation to move forward. Every era has its problems. Nostalgia is a psychological resource we use to solve them.

New research published in the European Journal of Personality provides more direct evidence of the distinction between nostalgia and declinism. Across several studies the researchers asked participants questions about nostalgia, such as how often they experience it and how valuable it is to them, and questions about declinism, such as whether they believe quality of life is declining and whether things used to be better in the good old days. They found that the two are largely unrelated. That is, nostalgia and declinism showed little to no correlation across their studies.

More importantly, nostalgia and declinism predicted opposite outcomes. Nostalgia predicted greater social connectedness and more favorable attitudes toward innovative technology. Declinism predicted less of both.

The researchers also tested this experimentally. Participants were asked to reflect on and write about either a nostalgic event from their lives, a time they felt things were in decline, or an ordinary event (the control condition). The researchers then assessed support for technological innovation, specifically attitudes toward the continued research and development of AI products. The nostalgic group showed increased support for technological innovation. The declinist group showed decreased support.

The researchers also found that social connectedness played a key role. Nostalgia made people feel more connected to others, and that greater sense of connection was associated with more support for technological innovation. Declinism made people feel less connected, and that weaker sense of connection was associated with less support for technological innovation. Put simply, nostalgia is a resource for progress. Declinism is a barrier to it.

This distinction between nostalgia and declinism can also be observed in historical nostalgia, the sentimentality people feel toward eras they never personally lived through. And Gen Z offers a good example of how this works in practice.

In a national survey conducted by our team at the Archbridge Institute’s Human Flourishing Lab, we found that 68% of Gen Z report nostalgic feelings for eras before their lifetime. Seventy-three percent say they are drawn to media, styles, hobbies, or traditions from earlier eras, and 78% believe new technologies and products should incorporate ideas and design elements from past periods. Roughly two-thirds say that exploring eras that predate their lives helps them when they are stressed about modern life or anxious about the future.

Gen Z consumer trends further reflect this pattern. Young people are driving the resurgence of vinyl records, film photography, board games, physical books, and traditional crafts like knitting, pottery, and woodworking. They are gravitating toward in-person experiences and tangible products that offer something different from their digital-saturated lives.

A critic looking at all this might see declinism. They might conclude that young people have given up on progress and are romanticizing a past they never knew. But that conclusion does not hold up. In our research, 86% of Gen Z say they are interested in learning about new technologies, 88% are motivated to use them, and 84% find it important to keep an open mind about technological advances. These are not the attitudes of people who believe the best days are behind us.

However, Gen Z has real concerns about the negative effects of modern digital technology, from its potential impact on mental health to its role in driving people apart and fueling political polarization. And rather than retreating into pessimism, they are nostalgically looking to the past for inspiration and guidance. As I wrote in an essay for the New York Times, young adults often turn to pre-digital cultural artifacts and traditions as a way to develop more intentional relationships with contemporary technology and cultivate more in-person experiences and connections that support their wellbeing and counter the division that digital life can fuel. They are not rejecting innovation. They are selectively and creatively borrowing from earlier eras to build a more balanced life.

When we misunderstand nostalgia and mistake it for declinism, we misdiagnose a healthy and productive impulse as a sign of cultural retreat. We miss the fact that people are actively using the past to move forward. Nostalgia is not a barrier to progress. It is one of the most underappreciated drivers of it.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

I consider myself an AI optimist. There is a lot of pessimism out there about how artificial intelligence will affect our society, but I see enormous potential for AI to improve our lives. That said, I think it is important to study and recognize AI’s limitations, especially when it comes to the parts of life that matter most. As a psychologist, I am particularly interested in understanding where AI can support human wellbeing and where it falls short. A really cool new study takes on one of the biggest questions in this space. Can an AI companion make people less lonely?

People are increasingly turning to AI for emotional support and connection. According to a report published in Harvard Business Review, therapy and companionship is now the number one use case for generative AI, up from number two the year before. And a survey from Common Sense Media found that 72% of U.S. teenagers have used AI for companionship at least once, with over half saying they are regular users. This is not a rare phenomenon. It is a rapidly growing trend.

But do AI chatbots actually fulfill human social needs? The research so far is mixed. Some studies have found that people feel happier and more socially connected right after chatting with a chatbot. But those studies mostly captured immediate reactions, not lasting effects. And at least one longer-term study found that relying on AI for companionship actually predicted increases in loneliness over time. A new study helps clarify the picture.

The study, published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, focused on first-year university students, a group naturally susceptible to loneliness as they navigate the transition away from established support systems. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions for two weeks. They either texted daily with a custom-built AI chatbot named Sam, texted daily with a randomly assigned fellow first-year student, or simply wrote a brief journal entry about their day. The researchers measured loneliness before and after the two-week period, so they could track whether each condition actually reduced loneliness over time.

I think it is worth highlighting the strength of this design. By comparing human connection, chatbot interaction, and journaling side by side, the researchers could isolate what actually matters. Journaling is a good comparison because it mirrors the basic act of processing your day without any social component.

In addition, the chatbot was not some generic tool. It was specifically designed to embody the qualities of an ideal friend based on principles from relationship science, including active listening, emotional validation, and empathetic responsiveness. In other words, the researchers gave AI every advantage they could. And participants engaged with it. They exchanged roughly eight to ten messages per day in both the chatbot and human conditions, with chatbot conversations actually generating more words per day.

Despite all of that, only participants who texted with a real human peer showed a significant reduction in loneliness over the two-week period. They also reported significantly lower loneliness at the end of the study than those in both the chatbot and journaling conditions. Meanwhile, participants who interacted with the chatbot reported loneliness levels that were statistically indistinguishable from those who simply journaled. The chatbot, for all its engineered warmth, did not reduce loneliness.

This does not mean the chatbot did nothing. Participants who interacted with it reported less negative mood compared to the journaling control group, consistent with prior research showing AI can provide short-term emotional relief. But when it came to the deeper issue of loneliness, the chatbot fell short.

Why? The researchers offer several compelling explanations that align with what we know about the psychology of human connection. First, meaningful relationships are built on reciprocity. In human conversations, both people disclose, both people listen, and both people provide support. Interestingly, the study found that the chatbot actually expressed more empathy than human participants did. But participants themselves expressed less empathy when talking to the chatbot than when talking to another person. Alleviating loneliness may depend not only on receiving support but on having the opportunity to give it.

As I have previously discussed, meaning is deeply social and agentic in nature. We feel most meaningful when we are making a positive difference in the lives of others. Being a source of support for someone else is not just nice. It fulfills a basic human need to matter. A chatbot that does all the heavy lifting may actually deprive people of the very thing that makes connection feel meaningful in the first place.

Second, there is the issue of social capital. Human relationships exist within broader social worlds. The people we connect with introduce us to other people, invite us into new groups, and open doors we did not know existed. This is how social, community, and professional networks are built and maintained. A chatbot, no matter how supportive, cannot substitute for any of that.

Third, there is something about knowing that another person chose to engage. When someone takes the time to reach out despite being busy with their own responsibilities and goals, it signals that the relationship matters to them. That signal is a powerful ingredient in human social life. A chatbot that is always available and always responsive cannot send it. The act of choosing to be there may matter more than anything a chatbot can say.

A news story I once saw captures this well. Several local churches had teamed up to put on a back-to-school event for families in need. In one location, parents could get backpacks, school supplies, clothes, and even haircuts for their kids. All of this was free and provided by volunteers. A reporter interviewed one mother who said the resources made a real difference for her struggling family. But knowing that people chose to help mattered just as much. Her family had been going through a really tough time, and beyond the financial stress, she had been feeling isolated and depressed. The fact that strangers freely gave their time reminded her that people cared, and that made her feel less alone and less hopeless.

None of this means AI has no role to play in addressing psychological and social problems. But I think the key distinction is between AI that works to bring people together and AI that attempts to substitute for human connection. If the goal is to reduce loneliness, the most effective AI tools will probably be the ones that help people find, build, and maintain real relationships, not the ones designed to simulate them.

There are dimensions of human experience that technology cannot replicate. Loneliness is not just the absence of someone to talk to. It is the absence of meaningful mutual connection, of knowing that another person is there for you and that you are there for them. No matter how advanced AI becomes and how many ways it can benefit our lives, human flourishing ultimately requires real human connection.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

In this newsletter, I frequently write about how central meaning is to a fulfilling life. People who perceive their lives as meaningful experience better psychological and physical health, stronger relationships, and greater success in pursuing their ambitions. When meaning is absent, people are at greater risk for depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behaviors ranging from substance abuse to suicide. I’ve also written about how meaning is found more in action than in contemplation. New research provides important insights into the role that hope plays in this process.

There is already a lot of research showing that hope supports meaning in life. A new series of studies published in Motivation and Emotion goes further by testing a specific mechanism. The researchers examined whether goal-directed action is one of the ways that hope builds meaning. They tested this idea in the context of health, looking at whether hope for one’s health promotes meaning in life by increasing health-related behaviors.

In the first study, the researchers explored this idea during the COVID-19 pandemic. They found that people who felt more hopeful about their health during the pandemic engaged in more health-protective behaviors such as hand washing and social distancing. And those behaviors, in turn, were associated with greater meaning in life. In a subsequent study, the researchers turned to the everyday health domains of exercise and nutrition. They found the same pattern. People who felt more hopeful about their health were more likely to engage in healthy behaviors, and those behaviors predicted greater meaning.

These findings provide evidence of a link between hope, goal-directed behavior, and meaning. But because these studies are correlational, they don’t tell us the direction of causality. It could be that hope increases goal-directed action, which then builds meaning. But it could also go the other way. In fact, previous research, including studies my colleagues and I have conducted, provides experimental evidence that meaning in life increases goal-directed action, which could increase hope. So does hope also increase goal-directed action and meaning?

To test this, the final study used an experimental design. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions. In the hope condition, they were asked to write three reasons they were hopeful about achieving their health goals over the next two months. In the hopelessness condition, they wrote three reasons they felt hopeless about achieving their health goals. We all experience moments of greater and lesser hope about our goals, and this writing exercise was designed to temporarily shift participants toward a more or less hopeful outlook on their health. In the neutral condition, they wrote about their daily routine.

The researchers found that those in the hope condition reported greater intentions to engage in healthy behaviors and higher meaning in life compared to those in the other conditions. Because participants were randomly assigned, this provides stronger evidence that hope is actually driving these effects.

In a previous newsletter, I discussed the momentum of meaning. You can spend a lot of time thinking about what would make your life feel meaningful, but meaning is found more in action than in contemplation. The hard part is getting started. But once you begin taking purposeful action, meaning starts to build, and that meaning motivates further action, creating a self-reinforcing cycle.

This new research adds an important piece to that picture by identifying hope as one of the things that can help get the cycle going. Though the studies focused specifically on health behaviors, the underlying principle extends to other domains. When you feel hopeful about a goal, whether it involves your career, your relationships, or your community, that hope motivates you to take concrete steps. And those steps contribute to a sense that your life has purpose and direction.

These findings also reinforce a theme that runs through much of my work on human flourishing, the importance of an outward and action-oriented approach to life. Meaning is not primarily found through inward contemplation. It is found through engaged, purposeful activity directed toward goals that matter to us and to the people we care about. While hope is something we experience internally, it doesn’t turn us inward. It pushes us outward, toward the aspirations and actions that generate meaning.

Hope is often dismissed as wishful thinking, a passive emotion that makes people feel good but doesn’t actually do anything. But research on hope, including these studies, tells a very different story. Hope is an energizing force. It moves people to act, and that action is what builds meaning. Our outlook on life matters not because of how it makes us feel in the moment but because of what it motivates us to do.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

When I was writing my most recent book, Past Forward, there was a point at which I was ready to give up. I had a lot going on in my professional life and was feeling overwhelmed. I’m an ambitious person who enjoys staying busy, but I started wondering if I had finally taken on more than I could handle. I stayed the course and finished the book in large part because of my wife. She helped me think through how to better manage the project alongside my other responsibilities. And she helped me reconnect with why I wanted to write the book in the first place. Of course, I still had to do the writing myself. But she played a crucial role in helping me reengage with and follow through on a goal I might have abandoned on my own.

I share this story because it captures something important about agency that we tend to overlook. We usually think of it in individualistic terms. Agency is our capacity to regulate our own thoughts, emotions, and behaviors, to set goals and pursue them, to take responsibility for the direction of our lives. This is a big part of the story. But there is another part that deserves more attention.

Humans are a deeply social species and other people play a central role in fueling the motivation that drives our agency, supporting us as we develop and pursue our goals, and shaping the environments that encourage or undermine agentic living. Understanding the social nature of agency doesn’t diminish individual responsibility. It helps strengthen it.

It starts with meaning. Meaning functions not just as an outcome of a good life but as a psychological resource that makes a good life possible. Meaning has motivational power. When people feel their lives are meaningful, they become more persistent, resilient, and willing to take on ambitious challenges. Meaning energizes the self-regulation and goal-directed action that agency requires.

And where does that meaning come from? Overwhelmingly, from other people. Research consistently shows that the most powerful sources of meaning are social. Family and close relationships come first for most people, but meaning also comes from the broader social groups, organizations, and institutions we participate in.

This isn’t simply because other people are present in our lives. It is because we believe we make a difference in theirs. We are inspired to take responsibility for our lives, to push through difficulties, and to strive to become better versions of ourselves in large part because of our desire to play a meaningful role in the lives of others. Think of the parent who persists through exhaustion, the entrepreneur who keeps building after setbacks, the volunteer who shows up week after week. In each case, the motivation to act agentically is fueled by a sense that what they are doing matters to others.

Other people don’t just fuel the motivation behind our agency. They also shape our belief that we are capable of directing our own lives. In his paper on the psychological building blocks of agency, Human Flourishing Lab fellow Andrew Abeyta highlights self-efficacy as a central component. It is the belief that we are capable of taking the actions necessary to achieve our goals. Our relationships and social environments are critical for developing self-efficacy. We build confidence in our abilities by watching others succeed, by receiving encouragement and mentoring from people we trust, and by being surrounded by individuals who support our efforts and acknowledge our growth. In other words, our belief in our own agency is not something we generate entirely on our own. It is cultivated through our interactions with others.

And when it comes to actually pursuing our goals, other people support our agency in practical and direct ways as well. As I discussed in a previous newsletter, research on goal sharing shows that when people tell others about their personally important goals, they receive significantly more support and invest considerably more effort into pursuing those goals.

When we share a goal with someone we trust, we invite them into our self-regulation process. They can remind us of what we are working toward, offer encouragement when we face setbacks, or provide practical accountability. Our agentic capacities are most effective when we strategically involve others.

Given the vital role that others play in our agency, it is worth being mindful of whether the social environments we inhabit are actually supporting it. Not all of them do. Social environments characterized by negativity, passivity, or a lack of accountability can quietly erode our motivation and self-efficacy. Being aware of this matters.

But equally important is recognizing that we are not just shaped by our social environments. We shape them. Every relationship and community we belong to is a context in which our actions influence what the people around us believe is possible. When we encourage someone’s goals, remind them of their potential, or simply show through our own efforts what it looks like to take responsibility, we strengthen the agency of those around us. And agency is not a finite resource that diminishes when shared. It grows when people invest in each other’s capacity to direct their own lives.

The next time you set a goal or push through a difficult stretch, notice who is behind that effort. Think about the people whose lives give your actions meaning and the people whose support keeps you going. Then consider how you might do the same for them and others. When we live agentically and support the agency of those around us, we help build a culture in which we feel responsible not only for ourselves but to each other.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

In previous newsletters, I’ve discussed what science tells us about living a meaningful life. Our overall sense of meaning is deeply connected to outward-oriented social action. We feel most meaningful when we are actively engaged in making a positive difference in the lives of others, whether it’s raising children, mentoring a colleague, building a business, volunteering in our communities, or simply showing up consistently for the people who count on us.

This week I want to discuss research that deepens our understanding of the existential benefits of social action by showing that the character we bring to our interactions with others also plays a role in how meaningful our lives feel. Specifically, a series of recent studies published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology examined whether everyday moral character contributes to a person’s sense of meaning. The findings suggest it does.

The researchers examined the relationship between moral character and meaning in life across three studies spanning two cultures. Instead of relying on self-report measures of moral character, which can be distorted by the desire to see ourselves in a favorable light, they used reputation-based measures. This involved asking close friends, family members, coworkers, and acquaintances to evaluate each participant’s moral character, and then having those participants separately report on their own sense of meaning as well as broader measures of wellbeing. Rather than focusing on any single moral behavior like donating or volunteering, which may not reflect a person’s overall character, the researchers assessed a broad range of everyday moral traits, such as compassion, honesty, fairness, loyalty, respectfulness, and dependability.

Across all three studies, the pattern was consistent. People who were rated as more moral by others reported a stronger sense of meaning in life as well as greater subjective wellbeing, including more positive emotion and greater life satisfaction. These findings held among U.S. college students whose close others rated their character, among Chinese employees whose coworkers rated them, and among a U.S. sample in which participants nominated people they personally knew as being among the most moral, least moral, or morally average in their lives. Those nominated as most moral reported higher meaning and wellbeing than those in the other groups.

The association between morality and meaning held across different dimensions of moral character. It was not driven solely by kindness-related traits like compassion. Integrity-related traits like honesty and fairness were also positively associated with meaning, even though integrity often involves standing up for principles in ways that can create social friction. Religiosity is a well-documented source of meaning, but the connection between moral character and meaning in these studies held even after accounting for religiosity.

The researchers explored why moral people tend to fare better, and the most consistent finding was that moral individuals reported having better relationships. When you treat people with compassion, honesty, and respect, you build the kind of strong relationships that support meaning. Our lives feel most significant when we are deeply embedded in the lives of others, and moral character appears to be one of the ways we build and sustain those bonds.

Studies my colleagues and I have conducted suggests that this relationship may go both ways. We found that the more people desire to live a meaningful life, the more they prioritize social goals and engage in prosocial behavior such as volunteering and charitable giving. In other words, the need for meaning itself appears to orient people toward others, and treating others well in turn supports meaning. Morality and meaning seem to reinforce each other.

This research on moral character and meaning enriches our understanding of the social nature of meaning by highlighting that it is not just about what we do. It is also about how we do it. Being honest in our dealings, treating people fairly, showing compassion when it is needed, and being someone others can count on are all ways we demonstrate that the people in our lives matter to us. And in doing so, we build the kind of life that makes us feel like we matter too.

These findings also reinforce a point I’ve made in a previous newsletter. Meaning is accessible to all of us through the everyday choices we make. The researchers were not studying acts of moral heroism or extraordinary courage. They were studying regular people and their everyday moral behavior, and among those regular people, those with stronger moral character experienced more meaning in their lives.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

I am not a great athlete and never have been. But physical exercise is a critical part of my life. I try to work out at least a little every day. On busy days, that might be a quick 15 or 20 minute session of weightlifting or cardio. I’m not training for any kind of competition. I just try to stay active and in shape, mixing in everything from lifting weights to swimming, biking, and hiking. To keep things fun, I also try to work in social physical activities like regular long walks with my wife and a weekly run club at a local brewery. When I occasionally do get out of my regular workout routine, I notice it in my mood, energy, and general outlook.

For me, exercise is about maintaining and strengthening my overall health and wellbeing. But a growing body of research finds that physical activity is far more than a wellness habit. It may be one of the most powerful tools we have for actually treating mental health conditions like depression and anxiety.

There is already a lot of research supporting this idea, but a new study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine provides one of the most comprehensive analyses to date. The study is what researchers call a “meta-meta-analysis.” Meta-analyses combine results from multiple individual studies to identify broader patterns. A meta-meta-analysis takes that a step further by systematically reviewing and synthesizing all the existing meta-analyses on a topic. In this case, the researchers examined 81 separate meta-analyses, which together drew from more than 1,000 original trials and nearly 80,000 participants.

The researchers set out to determine how effective exercise is at reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety, and whether the type, intensity, frequency, or social context of exercise matters. They found strong evidence that exercise reduces both depression and anxiety symptoms compared to being inactive. These effects were comparable to, and in some cases exceeded, those of more commonly prescribed treatments including psychotherapy and antidepressant medication.

This is so important because traditional mental health treatments can be expensive, difficult to access, and burdensome in other ways. Exercise, by contrast, is widely accessible and relatively low cost, and it comes with a host of additional physical health benefits. It is also something that fits naturally into daily life. We can exercise with friends and family. We can take our kids to the park and run around with them. We can take a walk on our lunch break. We can join a recreational sports league, take a yoga class, or, like me, show up to a weekly run club. It doesn’t require a referral or a prescription.

Aerobic activities like walking, running, cycling, and swimming were the most effective at reducing both depression and anxiety. But all forms of exercise showed positive effects, including resistance training and yoga. For depression specifically, the greatest improvements occurred when people exercised in group settings with professional guidance, such as fitness classes, running clubs, or supervised walking programs. (Data on group and supervised exercise for anxiety was not available in this analysis, so more research is needed there.) This social and structured component appears to be especially important for depression, which makes sense given what we know about the fundamental human need to belong and the psychological benefits of social connection.

There were also interesting findings about who benefits most. Young adults aged 18 to 30 and women who had recently given birth showed the most substantial improvements. Given that depression and anxiety rates are particularly high among younger populations, this is an especially relevant finding.

The good news is you don’t have to be a gym rat or train like you’re preparing for the Olympics. For depression, exercising just once or twice a week was about as effective as more frequent sessions, and intensity didn’t seem to matter much. For anxiety, the best outcomes came from consistent lower-intensity exercise maintained for up to eight weeks. Regular movement at a comfortable pace can make a real difference.

Beyond depression and anxiety, research shows that the psychological benefits of physical activity are wide-ranging. In a previous newsletter, I argued that we shouldn’t treat physical and psychological health as distinct. Our minds and bodies work in concert. Physical activity decreases the production of stress-related hormones like cortisol while increasing the brain’s output of mood-enhancing endorphins. Exercise enhances our ability to focus, boosts creativity, and improves memory, reducing the risk of cognitive decline as we age.

These findings also connect to a broader case I’ve been making about the need for a different societal approach to mental health. In previous articles and newsletters, I’ve argued that our culture’s growing fixation on psychological distress, while well-intentioned, may actually be contributing to the problem it seeks to solve. Reducing stigma around mental illness is a good thing, and so are efforts to make professional treatment more accessible for those who need it. But when we encourage people to spend more and more time focused inward on their negative thoughts and feelings, we risk promoting the kind of rumination that worsens depression and anxiety. Instead of pushing people further into their heads, we should be helping them engage in meaning-providing and outward-focused social, creative, educational, professional, spiritual, and physical activities.

Exercise may be one of the clearest illustrations of this principle. When you’re on a run, in a fitness class, or playing a sport, you’re engaged with the physical world around you. You’re setting and working toward goals. You’re often doing it alongside other people. You simply don’t have the mental bandwidth for rumination. And far from being a mere distraction, these activities foster self-confidence and a sense of agency that energize us to pursue a wide range of life goals. The research increasingly shows that this kind of outward orientation is a direct pathway to better mental health. Our team at the Archbridge Institute’s Human Flourishing Lab will be launching a major project on the outward action approach in the coming months, and I’ll have much more to share on this soon.

As a mental health intervention, exercise is evidence-based, accessible, and something you can start today. Sometimes the best thing we can do for our minds is to get out of our heads and move.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

Spend enough time on social media and it is easy to walk away with a discouraging view of your fellow humans. The hostile comments, viral outrage, and seemingly endless misinformation can make it feel like the online world reflects something deeply broken about people. Well, I have some encouraging news. New research shows that online toxicity is driven by a much smaller group of people than most of us realize.

In a series of three studies involving over 1,000 Americans, a team of researchers from Stanford University compared what people believe about harmful behavior on social media to what platform-level data actually reveals. The gap is pretty remarkable.

When participants estimated what percentage of active Reddit users had posted severely toxic content, they guessed more than 40 percent on average across the studies. The actual figure is 3 percent. For Facebook, participants estimated that nearly half of all users had shared false news online. The real number is 8.5 percent. When it came to so-called super-sharers who had spread 10 or more false news articles, participants guessed roughly 36 percent of users fell into this category. The actual figure is less than half of one percent.

The misperception is not rooted in confusion about what counts as harmful content. In one of the studies, participants were shown actual Reddit comments and asked to identify which ones would be classified as toxic. They were highly accurate. They understood what toxic content looks like. They simply believed it was coming from a much larger portion of the population than it actually is.

Participants also failed to realize how few accounts were responsible for so much content. That 3 percent of Reddit accounts responsible for toxic posts generated about a third of all content on the platform, toxic or otherwise. In other words, people encounter a lot of harmful content not because many people are creating it, but because a small group is posting relentlessly. We see the volume and assume it reflects broad participation. It does not.

I think it is crucial to emphasize what this misperception actually does to us. The researchers found that believing more people post harmful content online generates more negative emotion and a greater sense that the country is in moral decline. This sense of moral decline informs how people engage with public life, with institutions, and with each other. When we think the worst of our fellow citizens based on what we see online, we become more defensive and more prone to viewing those who disagree with us as bad actors rather than as people who simply see things differently.

The researchers also found that participants consistently underestimated how much their fellow Americans shared their desire for less harmful online content. So not only do we think more people are producing toxic content than actually are, we also fail to recognize how many people share our preference for a healthier online environment. We feel like a quiet, reasonable minority surrounded by a hostile majority. The data suggest a very different picture.

The good news is that this misperception can be corrected. When participants learned the actual prevalence of harmful content and understood that it comes from a small but vocal minority, they felt more positive emotion, showed less pessimism about their fellow citizens, and were better able to see that others share their desire for something better online.

Knowledge empowers agency. When we understand that the toxic content we see online is not representative of how most people actually behave, we can put what we see in its proper context, resist the pull toward cynicism, extend more good faith to the people we encounter, and remind ourselves that most people share our basic desire for a healthier online environment. And when we share this knowledge with others, we help replace a distorted picture with a more accurate and ultimately more hopeful one.

Most Americans who use social media are not spreading misinformation or engaging in toxic behavior. If we want to make progress on societal challenges such as polarization, social distrust, and pessimism about our shared future, seeing each other more accurately is a good place to start.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

Last week I was in Los Angeles and had the opportunity to tour Warner Bros. Studios. I’m a big movie lover so this was awesome! The tour did a great job of showing just how many different people are involved in making the magic of movies happen. Writers, directors, actors, producers, people who design and build sets, people who do special effects, people who handle video and sound mixing and editing, people who make the costumes, and so on. Movies are a massive collaborative effort involving countless dedicated professionals working together to create something that moves us.

And that’s exactly what movies do. Of course some movies are just entertainment. And that is fine. As I discussed in a previous newsletter, positive emotions are not only good for our own wellbeing, they make us more inclined to be friendly to others and inspired to make a difference in the world. So even movies that merely brighten our mood offer psychological and social benefits.

But movies can also move us more deeply through inspirational storytelling. They showcase acts of personal sacrifice and heroism that remind us of humanity’s capacity for courage. They depict triumph over adversity that demonstrates the power of persistence and resilience. They portray redemption that illuminates our ability to grow and change. And they display love, kindness, and deep connection that affirm our fundamental need for meaningful relationships

This is not a new phenomenon. From ancient storytelling traditions to the novels that captivated readers in the centuries before film, humans have always turned to stories for inspiration and guidance. What has changed is the medium, not the function.

This is also not a rare phenomenon. In a survey of over 3,000 Americans, researchers including my colleague Dr. Sophie Janicke-Bowles, a positive media psychologist and fellow with our Human Flourishing Lab at the Archbridge Institute, found that the vast majority of Americans indicate they have been touched, moved, or inspired by watching movies (87 percent) or television shows (80 percent). Importantly, the researchers found that the more of this kind of inspiring media people consume, the more inclined they are to engage in prosocial behavior. This is consistent with laboratory research showing that after people watched an inspiring video clip, they were more willing to volunteer to help the experimenter with tasks and spend more time doing so.

This brings to mind a few related ideas I have discussed in previous newsletters. In discussing the uplifting power of pop culture, I highlighted how entertainment helps us regulate our emotions and navigate difficult times, and how feeling better can motivate us to do better for others. The research on inspirational media reveals that films work through another mechanism as well. Beyond mood regulation, movies can inspire us directly through their portrayal of moral beauty and human goodness.

When I wrote about the forward-looking power of nostalgic movies, I emphasized how nostalgia is not about retreating to the past but rather using meaningful memories as fuel for future growth and creativity. The same principle applies here. Inspiring films do not just make us feel momentarily uplifted. They can provide psychological resources, models of behavior, and emotional experiences that we carry forward into our own lives and use to motivate our goals and actions.

And this research on how movies inspire us speaks directly to my ongoing emphasis on the importance of hope and hopeful stories. We live in an era often dominated by pessimism and cynical narratives about human nature and our shared future. We desperately need more stories that remind us of human potential, that showcase our capacity for goodness, that demonstrate how people can overcome challenges and make meaningful progress. Research shows that these are not just nice sentiments. Hopeful, inspiring stories actually broaden people’s sense of what is possible and motivate them to take action to create positive change.

However, even movies with terrifying, apocalyptic, or dystopian plots can inspire us. In writing about scary fun and apocalyptic thinking, I have explored how engaging with difficult or unsettling narratives in safe contexts can help us build psychological resilience and prepare for real-world challenges. But there is another side to this. Many of the most inspiring films include moments of darkness, adversity, or moral struggle. It is precisely because characters face and overcome these challenges that their stories move us. When we see a character display courage in the face of fear, kindness in the midst of cruelty, or hope despite despair, we are not just entertained. We are encouraged to believe that we too can rise to meet our own challenges with grace and determination.

The movies that truly move us do more than entertain. They remind us of what it means to be human and of our capacity for courage, compassion, and growth. In a world that often feels cynical and dispiriting, we need more of these stories.

Have a great weekend (and maybe watch a movie or two)!

Clay

Interested in more insights on the cultural, spiritual, and existential power of stories? Check out my colleague Paul Anleitner's newsletter, Reading the Zeitgeist. Paul is Religion & Culture Fellow with our Human Flourishing Lab at the Archbridge Institute.

Open-mindedness is a critical ingredient of human progress. To solve complex problems requires the capacity to thoughtfully engage with perspectives that challenge our existing beliefs. Cultures characterized by openness foster innovation, encourage learning, and enable people with different beliefs and life experiences to work together effectively. As Johan Norberg documents in his book Peak Human (which I highly recommend), such openness has been a defining feature of humanity’s most successful eras. However, people are often reluctant to engage with opposing views and are skeptical of those who hold them. And this tendency appears to have intensified in recent years as surveys reveal high levels of political polarization and social distrust. Could artificial intelligence help us address this challenge?

In a series of studies recently published in Scientific Reports, researchers Louise Lu, Zakary Tormala, and Adam Duhachek examined whether people respond differently to counterattitudinal messages depending on whether they believe those messages come from AI or human sources. Across four experiments involving over 2,000 participants, the researchers tested this question on topics including universal healthcare, vaccinations, and gun control.

In these studies, participants received counterattitudinal messages on issues they had an opinion on. In studies on the topic of universal healthcare, the researchers recruited participants who supported universal healthcare and presented them with a message outlining disadvantages of universal healthcare. In subsequent studies on the topics of vaccinations and gun control, they recruited people on both sides of these issues and gave each person a counterattitudinal message based on their position. This allowed them to test whether their findings would hold across different issues and regardless of which side of an issue people started from.

For each topic, everyone on the same side of an issue received the exact same counterattitudinal message. But critically, the source varied. Some participants were told the message came from an AI source like ChatGPT, while others were told it came from human sources such as other study participants, experts, social media influencers, or advocacy groups.

The results were consistent across studies. When people believed a counterattitudinal message came from AI rather than a human source, they perceived it as less biased, more informative, and as having less persuasive intent. These perceptions mattered. Participants who received counterattitudinal messages from AI sources reported feeling more receptive to the opposing viewpoint. They were more willing to seek out additional information on the topic and more willing to share the message with others.

The gun control study included an additional measure examining attitudes toward people on the opposing side. Participants who received a counterattitudinal message from an AI source reported more positive feelings toward people on the other side of the issue compared to those who received the same message from a human advocacy group.

In short, we appear to be more receptive to information that challenges our beliefs when that information comes from AI because we see AI as less biased, more informative, and less intent on changing our minds than human sources. And these same perceptions that increase our receptiveness to opposing arguments also seem to make us feel more positively toward the people who hold those views.

These findings offer an intriguing possibility for addressing social distrust and polarization, but the real challenge is becoming more open to perspectives offered by the actual people who hold different views. We need to cultivate the capacity to listen to others even when we disagree with them and be willing to consider that their views might be informed by experiences or knowledge we don’t have. If engaging with counterattitudinal information through AI sources helps us experience what it feels like to consider opposing views without reflexive defensiveness, that practice might make us more receptive when those views come from humans. The goal should not be to replace human dialogue with AI-mediated information, but to use AI as one tool among many to help us become more open-minded people.

These findings are encouraging, but they depend on people continuing to perceive AI as neutral and informative. While the studies suggest people currently view AI as more neutral than human sources, survey research from our team at the Archbridge Institute’s Human Flourishing Lab reveals skepticism about AI’s long-term impact. We found that 51 percent of Americans believe AI will weaken our information ecosystem by creating echo chambers and increasing censorship. How we design, deploy, and engage with AI technologies will determine whether they help us become more receptive to different perspectives or further entrench us in our existing views.

Much of the current conversation about AI is dominated by concerns and fears. This is not surprising, as technological disruption is often met with anxiety and resistance. When it comes to AI, people worry about job displacement, the spread of misinformation, threats to privacy, and the erosion of human connection. These concerns deserve serious attention and thoughtful responses. However, progress requires an optimistic and agentic attitude in which we do not allow fear to dictate our actions or prevent us from exploring the potential benefits of new technologies. Research like this can help us see possibilities we might otherwise overlook. Perhaps by opening our minds to what AI might offer, we can also open our minds to new ways of engaging with each other.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

When I’m interviewed about or give talks on existential psychology, I’m often asked what advice I would give to someone struggling to find meaning in their life. I answer this question by describing the social and action-oriented nature of meaning, emphasizing that our lives feel the most existentially fulfilling when we are actively engaged in activities that make a difference in the lives of others. This is true, but the more I reflect on this question, the more I see the parallels between meaning and physical fitness. Understanding this similarity can help those struggling with meaning.

When we’re out of shape, we can spend a lot of time thinking about getting in shape, but finding the motivation to actually get started is hard. And even once we get ourselves to the gym and start exercising, those first few weeks are tough. Our bodies aren’t used to the exertion. We feel sore. Progress seems slow. But if we keep at it, something shifts. We start to see results. We start enjoying the challenge. We become more confident and motivated. What once required tremendous effort begins to sustain itself.

Meaning works in a similar way. People can spend a lot of time thinking about what would make their lives feel meaningful, but meaning is found more in action than in contemplation. Research on self-regulatory processes demonstrates this. Studies show that purpose (a key component of meaning in life) is driven by locomotion ( taking action to move toward goals). Meanwhile, assessment ( evaluating and comparing different goals before pursuing them) isn’t associated with higher purpose. In fact, greater assessment is linked to lower purpose. In short, the more people focus on moving forward and taking action, the more purposeful their lives feel.

Assessment is an important part of self-regulation. We need to identify meaningful aspirations and figure out how to pursue them. The problem arises when we get stuck in evaluation mode, endlessly weighing our options and second-guessing our choices. Too much assessment interferes with what actually generates meaning. Just as getting in good physical shape requires regularly engaging in fitness activities, getting in good existential shape requires regularly engaging in meaning-providing activities.

Critically, meaning doesn’t just result from action. It also motivates action. When we feel our lives are meaningful, we become more resilient, more persistent, and more willing to engage with challenges. Meaning is a powerful motivational resource. This creates a cycle. Action generates meaning, and that meaning energizes us to take more action, which builds even more meaning. This is the momentum of meaning.

The challenge is that finding the motivation to start engaging in meaning-providing action is hard. And even once you begin taking action, the early phase can feel uncertain and uncomfortable. But as you persist, meaning begins to emerge and build.

So how does someone struggling with meaning get this momentum going in the first place? Just as someone who is out of shape must push themselves to take that first difficult step into the gym, someone searching for meaning must take action even when they don’t feel particularly motivated to do so. That first action is often the hardest.

Knowing a bit about the science of meaning can help. Research finds that humans find meaning primarily through making a positive difference in the world. We derive meaning from contributing to something larger than ourselves, from pursuing goals that matter not just to us but to the people and communities we care about. So when I say to throw yourself into action, I mean action that is outwardly focused and socially engaged.

This could be creating a business that addresses a need you’ve identified, leading an initiative that improves your organization, starting a community group around a shared interest, mentoring someone in your field, being fully present in your role as a parent, showing up consistently for a friend in need, or helping neighbors with tasks they struggle with. The key is to direct your energy toward activities where you can make a contribution.

And just as you have to keep exercising to stay in shape, you have to keep engaging in purposeful action to maintain a sense of meaning in your life. Meaning isn’t something you achieve once and then possess forever. Yes, momentum helps carry you forward, but you need to stay in motion.

The good news is that just like with exercise, you can vary what you do. If one form of meaningful engagement becomes less fulfilling or less feasible, you can shift to different activities. What provides meaning can change across different life stages. What matters is that you stay active.

If you’re spending too much time in your head, evaluating options, second-guessing yourself, and waiting to feel motivated before you act, you’re working against how meaning actually works. You’re trying to think your way to meaning when meaning comes from doing.

Taking action when life feels meaningless requires tremendous effort. But remember you don’t have to feel ready. You don’t have to have it all figured out. You don’t have to be certain that what you’re doing will work. You just have to start. Take one concrete action today that directs your energy outward, that gives you a chance to make even a small positive difference.

The early steps will likely feel difficult. That’s normal. But pay attention to what happens as you persist. Notice if that action, even if it’s uncomfortable at first, begins to generate even a small sense of meaning. And then take another action tomorrow. The momentum will build. The meaning will emerge. And that meaning will make the next action a little easier, which will create more meaning, which will motivate more action.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

I was recently in NYC to record an episode of futurist Sinead Bovell’s show I’ve Got Questions (link on image above). For this week’s Flourishing Friday, I want to share our conversation. I really enjoyed the discussion and thought Sinead asked some excellent questions. We talked about the human search for meaning, the existential nature of work, what it means to be human as AI becomes increasingly capable of the complex reasoning and creative problem-solving that made us feel special, nostalgia as a future-oriented resource, and other topics related to human motivation and wellbeing.

If these are topics you find interesting, I think you’ll enjoy the full episode. Here are a few key ideas that came up, things I think are especially relevant as we navigate this moment of rapid technological change.

The Inward/Outward Paradox

One point I tried to emphasize is that we often confuse why we need meaning with how we find it. Our self-awareness, combined with other cognitive capacities, allows us to ponder existential questions, which drives the need for meaning. That’s the inward part. But we generally don’t find meaning by looking inward. We find it by turning outward and striving to make positive contributions to the world through our relationships, work, and other activities.

This matters because so much advice today tells people to focus inward on self-care. And while this has its place, to truly flourish, you have to direct your attention outward. You have to get in the game. Meaning comes from action, from mattering to others, from being useful. Check out these previous newsletters for more of my thoughts on this topic.

A Meaningful Life Takes Work

Don’t Overthink the Meaning of Your Life

What Science Tells Us About Living a Meaningful Life

Toward an Outward Action Approach to Mental Health

What AI Is Really Exposing

Another topic we covered was how AI relates to meaning. Major technological and cultural disruptions can feel like threats to meaning. But AI might represent something more significant than typical technological change. It has the potential to do much of this cognitive work we thought made us special. I believe this will provoke us to think more holistically about what distinguishes our humanity.

We are biological organisms, not machines. We need tangible, physical engagement with the world. We don’t just engage in cold cognitive reasoning. We have deeply social, emotional, and spiritual lives. Importantly, our need for meaning ensures that we’ll keep searching for ways to contribute and make a difference, even as AI capabilities expand. AI can’t change that fundamental human need. It will be useful to keep this in mind in our discussions about the future of work.

Work and Adaptation

We also talked specifically about how this relates to work. We’ve been through this before. Think about when ATMs were introduced. People worried they would destroy banking jobs, but they actually created new kinds of banking jobs and opportunities. Technological disruption can be difficult, but humans adapt. We are resilient and creative. The key is to remain open-minded, hopeful, and aspirational about the future we can build. Understanding human nature more holistically, beyond just our cognitive abilities, gives us a better foundation for adapting to technological change and finding meaningful work in the future.

Nostalgia as Fuel for the Future

Sinead also asked about the growing retro counterculture with people using flip phones, leaving dating apps, returning to physical media, seeking more nature, and embracing analog experiences. This connects to my nostalgia research. These aren’t people who want to live in the past. They’re not rejecting progress. They’re recognizing we’ve lost something valuable in our rush toward the digital and trying to reclaim it. They’re using the past to identify what fulfilled us as humans so they can build a better future. Nostalgia is forward-looking. It’s how we figure out what’s worth preserving as we move into new territory. I’ve written about nostalgia and progress in previous newsletters. If you’re interested in learning more, check out the following:

Why I Call Myself a Nostalgia Futurist

New Insights on Historical Nostalgia

The Forward-Looking Power of Nostalgic Movies

Nostalgia and Our Humanity in the Age of AI

Starting Where You Are

Sinead asked what I’d tell someone struggling to find meaning right now. This is something I’m going to dive deeper into in next week’s newsletter, but the short version is this. Meaning is like exercise. The hardest part is starting. Don’t look for something grand. Identify a small need you can help with, whether in your community, at work, or with your family. Meaning comes from action, and once you start, it becomes self-reinforcing. More on this next week.

There’s much more in the full conversation, which you can find here.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

If you spend much time consuming media commentary or scrolling through online discourse, you could easily conclude that Americans are deeply pessimistic about everything from their personal prospects to their country’s future. As we begin a new year, I think it’s a good time to step back and get a more complete picture. It turns out that positive attitudes remain common among Americans, they just don’t get much attention. These positive attitudes matter because they reveal psychological strengths that can be mobilized to address real challenges.

At the Archbridge Institute, we regularly conduct national surveys measuring American attitudes across multiple dimensions of life. I’ve discussed many of these surveys individually as we’ve released them. But I wanted to highlight some of our key findings from 2025 because when you see them side by side, a clear pattern emerges. Positive attitudes remain remarkably widespread across different aspects of American life, even when broader discussions of American sentiment ignore them entirely.

The American Dream offers a good starting point. We’re constantly told it’s dead, that it’s become an unattainable relic of a bygone era. Our research tells a very different story. Around 70 percent of Americans report they have achieved or are making progress toward achieving the American Dream. What people value most about the Dream is particularly revealing. Freedom of choice in how to live tops the list at 83 percent, followed closely by having a good family life at 80 percent. Only 15 percent say becoming wealthy is essential to the Dream. The American Dream, for most Americans, is about freedom and family, not riches. When it comes to opportunity, the pessimistic narrative falls short again. Just 23 percent of Americans believe they have fewer opportunities than their parents did. The story Americans tell about their own lives and prospects doesn’t match the story often told about them.

Just as we’re told the American Dream is dead, we also hear claims that Americans no longer see the United States as a positive force in the world. Our research reveals a different reality. Most Americans recognize their nation as an important driver of positive global change. Three-quarters believe America’s global leadership has been crucial for human progress, with similar proportions crediting the nation’s cultural emphasis on optimism and possibility (76 percent) and business achievements (78 percent). Even more (84 percent) highlight the nation’s scientific research as a driver positive change globally. Perhaps most significantly, nearly eight in ten Americans agree that going forward, America’s contributions will remain vital for human progress.

This recognition of America’s past and future contributions is accompanied by deep personal gratitude for what previous generations accomplished. We find that nearly nine in ten American adults feel grateful for the efforts and accomplishments of past generations that contribute to the quality of life they enjoy today. Similar proportions agree that historical stories about major breakthroughs and triumphs over adversity give them reason to believe we can overcome today’s biggest challenges. Importantly, this isn’t just about looking back with appreciation. Most Americans (83 percent) said thinking about what previous generations accomplished inspires them to make contributions that will benefit future generations. This suggests that gratitude for the past translates into motivation for the future.

Finally, despite narratives of powerlessness, Americans maintain strong feelings of agency in both their personal lives and their capacity to contribute to society. In our recent report on the state of personal agency in America, we found that nine in ten Americans believe they have the ability to exercise control over their own lives. When we measured what we call progress agency (the sense that one can improve the world beyond just one’s personal life), strong majorities believe they have both the power (74 percent) and responsibility (79 percent) to make contributions that improve the world. The narrative of widespread powerlessness doesn’t reflect how most Americans actually view their capacity to shape their lives and make a positive difference in the world.

These findings don’t erase the real challenges we face as a nation. Mental health struggles, loneliness, and political polarization are genuine problems that deserve attention. But it’s also critical to focus on the positive because psychological states like confidence, optimism, gratitude, and agency aren’t just good for personal wellbeing. They drive human progress by motivating people to take action on challenges, fostering the creativity and open-mindedness needed for innovation, and sustaining the persistence required when facing obstacles. As we head into a new year, let's recognize these positive attitudes and build on the psychological strengths that most Americans possess.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

With Christmas falling on Thursday this year, I decided to publish Flourishing Friday a bit early as a special edition that might be particularly helpful for anyone whose relationship with the holidays has been challenging and is looking to change how they experience this season.

For many of us, the holidays bring excitement and joy. We look forward to celebrating with family and friends, sharing meals, exchanging gifts, and creating new memories together. But it is important to recognize that this season can also be difficult for people. Some are grieving the loss of a loved one, going through a tough time in their life, or carrying painful holiday memories. Others are alone, and the cultural emphasis on togetherness can make their solitude feel even more pronounced. Those of us who look forward to this season should think about ways we can reach out to people who might be struggling during this time. With that in mind, I want to share an insight from a conversation I had while working on my book Past Forward.

During the book writing process, I talked to as many people as I could about their nostalgic experiences. I wanted to go beyond the academic research and learn about the different ways individuals use nostalgia in their daily lives. In one of these conversations, I spoke with someone who told me that Christmas was his absolute favorite holiday. He described the joy he feels during the season with such enthusiasm that I naturally assumed he must have wonderful childhood Christmas memories. But to my surprise, he told me the opposite. His childhood was very difficult. His father was abusive and there was constant conflict in his home. His personal Christmas memories are not happy ones at all.

But what he said next captures something powerful about the social and cultural nature of nostalgia. Even though Christmas was unhappy for him as a child, he said he knew it should have been different. From hearing other people share their experiences and from watching television shows and movies, he understood that Christmas was supposed to be a time of warmth, joy, and family connection. He saw what the holiday could be, even if that wasn’t his reality. And this understanding empowered him. He made a determination. As he got older and eventually started his own family, he committed himself to making Christmas a joyful experience for his children and everyone else around him.

In other words, he borrowed nostalgic memories from other people and from popular culture. This allowed him to see Christmas in a completely different way and to approach it with greater agency. He recognized that today’s actions become tomorrow’s memories and he was determined to build new nostalgic memories for the future.

Research supports what this story illustrates. Nostalgic memories don’t need to be our own to provide psychological benefits. For example, a study published in the journal Memory found that when individuals read nostalgic stories written by other people, it increased nostalgic feelings in them. Importantly, along with these feelings came the psychological benefits associated with nostalgia such as a greater sense of meaning in life.

This helps explain historical nostalgia, which is nostalgia for eras before our lifetime. In our research at the Archbridge Institute’s Human Flourishing Lab, we found that most Americans have nostalgic feelings for eras that predate them and find this helpful for managing their present stress and anxiety about the future.

If you find the holidays difficult because your own memories from this time aren’t happy, seek out stories from people whose holiday experiences resonate with how you want to feel. Pay attention to the cultural narratives, traditions, and values that speak to what the holidays could be. Use these borrowed nostalgic resources to create new experiences and build the memories you want for yourself and others. The past matters, but you decide how to use it to shape your future.

Happy Holidays!

Clay

If you are a regular Flourishing Friday reader, you probably know that the psychology of nostalgia is a major topic of my work. Though I have been researching and writing about nostalgia for more than two decades, in the past few years I’ve become especially fascinated by how people situate their own stories within larger cultural narratives through what’s called historical nostalgia. This week, I’m trying something a bit different. Through my research and consulting work, I’ve seen how companies can use nostalgia in ways that go well beyond traditional marketing campaigns. To explore this further, I’m co-authoring the newsletter with Jason Dressel, CEO of History Factory, an agency that helps Fortune 500 companies leverage their organizational heritage. I think you’ll find the intersection of our perspectives valuable, whether you have a leadership role or are looking for ways to strengthen an organization you’re part of. This article also appears in Jason’s newsletter “The History Factor.” Have a great weekend! — Clay

The holidays and nostalgia go together like chestnuts and an open fire. At this time of year, personal rituals and traditions bring us together, connecting us through shared memories and experiences. Brands have long tapped into this collective sentiment with nostalgia-based holiday campaigns, but what’s notable is how they do it. It’s not always the content itself that sparks nostalgia—sometimes it’s the tradition of seeing it. No one wants Budweiser to run the same Super Bowl ad twice, but the return of the Clydesdales every holiday season is a ritual dating back to the 1970s. The same goes for Corona’s “Feliz Navidad,” Hershey’s Kisses as holiday bells and Coca-Cola’s polar bears. These ads—often the exact same creative running year after year—are less about innovation and more about comfort. After all, there’s nothing inherently nostalgic about polar bears; it’s their predictability that resonates.

Today, nostalgia marketing isn’t just a seasonal strategy—data published in August 2025 indicated that 48% of U.S. adults were at least somewhat likely to purchase products that made them nostalgic for the past. And nostalgia isn’t just for marketers. If you asked a room full of business leaders how nostalgia could be used in their organizations, we’d bet the odds are 90% they would all give you a marketing answer—and that’s the problem. Leaders appreciate the power of nostalgia in outward-facing advertising campaigns but often fail to recognize its potential to help address internal challenges.

Employers face growing challenges when it comes to sustaining employee engagement, especially among younger workers. Gallup reports that engagement among U.S. employees has fallen to its lowest level in a decade, with the sharpest decline among Gen Z. The American Psychological Association reports that younger employees are more likely than older ones to feel stressed, lonely and undervalued. In one study, 40% of Gen Z workers said they view burnout as inevitable. Together, these findings point to a generation that is less engaged, less connected and more vulnerable to stress. To meet these challenges, companies can harness the power of nostalgia-driven storytelling using an underestimated asset that’s especially relevant to their younger employees: their organizational history.

Earlier this year, Bloomberg reported that “The Business of History Is Booming,” noting a 70% surge between 2013 and 2023 in books published about historical figures and events. That strong market for history is also evident in other media, such as in the explosion of historical or nostalgia-themed content in podcasts, film and television.

This appetite for history-driven storytelling is carrying over to corporate brands. Movies and shows like Netflix’s “The House of Guinness,” “The Playlist,” “Blackberry,” “Tetris” and “Ferrari” are just a few titles based on historical dramatizations of stories from real-life brands. Using history also improves performance on owned and paid media channels. According to the Ipsos Global Ad testing database, the use of history or heritage in advertising provides an 8% bump in brand attention in the UK, and Kantar shows that, globally, ads with nostalgic elements show a 15-point increase in enjoyability with a 9-point increase in emotional connection.

This broad interest in history also translates to the workplace. History Factory’s 2024 Brand Heritage Index, a national consumer survey of U.S. adults conducted by Certus Insights, found that 85% of employees believed knowing more about their employer’s history would improve productivity, culture and the work environment, while 87% said they would be more invested in their company’s success if they knew its history. History Factory’s 2025 Brand Heritage Index survey, also conducted by Certus Insights, found that nearly half of younger adults think companies should use history and heritage more often on social media.

What’s driving this appetite for history? In large part, it appears to be a response to social isolation, digital fatigue and the dizzying pace of technological change. In an era defined by speed, screens and fragmentation, history has reemerged as a stabilizing anchor, helping people feel grounded and connected. This is where nostalgia comes into play. It is the psychological force at the heart of this cultural trend.

Nostalgia is often perceived negatively as dwelling unproductively on the past, but this skepticism stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of how it functions. A large body of research shows that nostalgia is a vital psychological resource. Surveys show that people frequently feel sentimental about the past and see nostalgia as a source of comfort, guidance and inspiration. Simple nostalgic activities like reflecting on a cherished memory or listening to music from one’s youth have been found to boost mood, strengthen feelings of social connection, increase self-confidence, enhance perceptions of meaning in life, inspire an optimistic outlook and increase the motivation to pursue goals.

Nostalgia also has important implications for the workplace beyond these individual psychological benefits that serve organizations by improving employee well-being and motivation. It increases empathy and altruistic behavior. It also enhances open-mindedness, inspiration and creativity—qualities that support teamwork, problem-solving and innovation. Studies further show that organizational nostalgia—a sentimental longing for past events within or aspects of one’s organizational life—increases the sense of meaning people find in their jobs and reduces turnover intentions.

Nostalgia can be especially helpful during periods characterized by disruption. For example, when employees feel burned out and detached from their work’s purpose, reflecting on meaningful work-related experiences can remind them that their work has brought deep satisfaction in the past and can again. This recognition can motivate them to reengage in more fulfilling ways.

Building on this foundational scholarly analysis, research by the Archbridge Institute’s Human Flourishing Lab shows that people often feel nostalgia for eras that predate their own lives in what’s referred to as “historical nostalgia.” A nationally representative survey of more than 2,000 U.S. adults found that 68% feel nostalgic for times before their births; 69% percent are drawn to media, styles, hobbies, or traditions from those periods; and 73% believe that new technologies should incorporate ideas from the past. Majorities also say that historical nostalgia helps them when they feel stressed or overwhelmed by modern life (63%) or anxious about the future (62%).

People often underestimate the role of nostalgia in the lives of younger adults. However, research shows they experience it frequently. In fact, when it comes to historical nostalgia, younger generations (Gen Z and millennials) report higher levels than boomers and the Silent Generation. By activating history, organizations can tap into the benefits of corporate memory and culture even when people did not directly experience the events in question. For instance, research finds that when young adults read stories of older generations, they feel more nostalgic themselves and experience increased feelings of belongingness, meaning and deep connection.

Despite common misperceptions, nostalgia isn’t about dwelling in the past. Rather, it supports the psychological states and behaviors that help individuals and organizations thrive in a changing world—and it’s a powerful tool for today’s workplace. Heritage-based historical nostalgia roots employees in a larger story that links an organization’s past with its present, offering a way to deepen connection, renew purpose and create more engaged workplaces for the years ahead. So put on your fuzziest socks and savor that hot chocolate: There’s nothing wrong with getting cozy with the past as you get ready for the new year.

I am excited to share a new report from our team at the Human Flourishing Lab on the state of personal agency in America.

Personal agency is the belief in one’s capacity to influence life circumstances and determine one’s own path. Personal agency is the psychological foundation of individual and societal flourishing as well as human progress. People who believe they can shape their own lives are more motivated to pursue their goals, more resilient when facing setbacks, and more likely to succeed in education, careers, and relationships. Agentic individuals maintain hope in the face of major societal challenges, innovate solutions to problems, and work cooperatively with others to improve their communities and the broader world.

Do Americans feel they have agency over their lives? And if so, do they feel agentic across different dimensions of life? It is possible that people may feel a strong sense of control in one area of their lives but not in others. To capture this complexity, we assessed agency across seven dimensions of human flourishing: mental health, physical health, social relationships, meaning and purpose in life, moral character, spiritual well-being, and financial well-being.

Here is what we found. Americans overwhelmingly believe they have agency over their lives. Ninety percent of Americans agree they can exercise meaningful control over their life overall. This strong sense of agency extends across the dimensions of flourishing. Eighty-nine percent of Americans believe they have agency over their mental health and physical health. Ninety percent believe they have agency over their social relationships, their meaning and purpose in life, and their spiritual well-being. Ninety-two percent believe they have agency over their moral character. Even for financial well-being, the dimension with the lowest percentage, 84 percent of Americans believe they have agency over their financial situation.

The data revealed some demographic differences. The most notable is that young adults ages 18 to 29 consistently report the lowest sense of agency across all dimensions of flourishing compared to older age groups. This finding tracks with other research, including our own surveys, showing young adults feel less mentally healthy and less hopeful about their future than older generations. That said, it’s important to note that on every dimension except financial flourishing, around 80 percent or more of adults under 30 still feel agentic. On financial flourishing, this drops to 75 percent, which points to a broader pattern. Across all age groups, financial flourishing is where people feel the least agency. Though lower than other dimensions, the fact that the vast majority of Americans still believe they have agency over their financial well-being is noteworthy given widespread concerns about rising costs, housing affordability, and how artificial intelligence might impact jobs.

Despite the negative narratives that often dominate public discourse about the current state and future of our nation, these findings paint an encouraging picture. Americans believe they have the power to shape their own lives. They recognize that their decisions, goals, and actions matter. This is one reason I remain bullish about America. Yes, we have major challenges, as we have in the past and will in the future. But Americans continue to believe they have the agency to face those challenges.

Have a great weekend!

Clay

As Thanksgiving approaches, I have been reflecting on a conversation I had with Dr. Robert Emmons, the world’s leading scientific expert on gratitude. He told me something that has stuck with me because it aligns so closely with my thinking on our nation’s growing mental health challenges. When I asked him about ways people can cultivate gratitude in their daily lives, he responded that “the biggest lesson that I have learned is that self-forgetfulness promotes gratefulness.”

He explained that “a focus on how we are doing in being grateful is actually counterproductive. It makes gratitude a burden. It reduces it to another item on our to-do list. A self-improvement project.” This runs counter to our modern self-help culture that turns everything into an inward-focused, self-monitoring task. However, as Dr. Emmons put it, gratitude is not about us. It is about focusing our attention on another person, on what another person has done or given to us, on what we could not do or give to ourselves.

In other words, gratitude is not about tracking your own feelings. It is about recognizing and honoring another person. And by directing our attention to others rather than fixating on our feelings, we actually end up improving our own wellbeing. Research backs this up. Studies show that gratitude practices focused on other people, such as writing gratitude letters and expressing appreciation directly to others increases positive emotions and life satisfaction.

Gratitude is just one example of what I believe should be a broader shift in how we approach psychological health. As I have been exploring in my work, we live in an era obsessed with looking inward. We are constantly encouraged to check in with our feelings, to practice self-care, to work on ourselves. However, there is mounting evidence that the best way to improve our own wellbeing is not to focus on it directly, but to direct our attention outward toward others and the world around us.

Consider one study where researchers compared inward-focused cognitive behavioral therapeutic exercises (identifying and revising negative thought patterns) with outward-focused acts of kindness (engaging in activities that improve other people’s lives). Both interventions reduced anxiety and depression symptoms weeks after research participants completed them. However, performing the acts of kindness led to the greatest mental health improvements. The study also found that acts of kindness are especially effective at improving mental health because they take people’s minds off their own problems. Other research further highlights the distinct utility of outward social action by determining that acts of kindness focused on others, what we might call outward oriented acts, but not acts of kindness focused on the self, or inward oriented acts, boost psychological wellbeing and reduce symptoms of depression and anxiety.

This is not about dismissing the value of self-reflection or denying the importance of addressing our own needs. Rather, it is about recognizing that human beings are fundamentally existential beings with a deep need for meaning, and that meaning comes less from looking inward and more from engaging outward with the world around us.

For over two decades, I have been conducting research on the human need for meaning in life. When I first started this work, I viewed meaning as largely a philosophical and contemplative endeavor. After all, humans are able to ask existential questions about meaning because of our advanced intellectual capacities. But after years of conducting research and studying related scholarly work, I came to better understand that meaning is found more in socially agentic action than it is in introspection about the nature of the human condition. We find meaning by playing a significant role in the lives of others.

The key to gratitude is the key to flourishing more broadly. We thrive when we turn our attention away from our own internal states and toward the people around us. We become grateful not by trying to feel grateful but by noticing and honoring the goodness of others. We improve our own wellbeing not by endlessly examining our feelings but by directing our energy toward improving the lives of people around us.

As you approach Thanksgiving this year, I encourage you to turn outward. Focus on the specific people who have made your life better. Write that letter. Make that phone call. Show up for someone who needs you. Contribute something meaningful to your community. Express your appreciation directly to someone who has touched your life in a meaningful way. These are the other-focused actions that Dr. Emmons describes as paving the royal road to gratefulness.

Have a great weekend!

Clay