Your coworker talks about her job like it’s a calling. Your neighbor talks about his kids the same way. You feel most like yourself on a run at 6 a.m., alone, answering to nobody. Somewhere in the back of your mind sits the suspicion that this makes you the shallow one, that real purpose looks like the other two and yours is just a coping mechanism with good cardio. There isn’t one correct source of purpose, though: Isaiah Berlin called this value pluralism, and a 2025 psychology study just went out and measured it.

A 2025 study in The Journal of Positive Psychology, “How Sources of Purpose Predict Meaning in Life, Happiness, and Psychological Richness, Across Cultures,” by researchers Michael Mask, Dunigan Folk, and Steven Heine, says that suspicion is doing more work than the evidence supports. There isn’t one correct source of purpose that everyone else has found and you haven’t. There are at least sixteen, and which one carries the most weight depends on where you live, what you value, and who you are. Isaiah Berlin argued the philosophical version of this in 1958, in a lecture that’s still one of the sharper rebukes ever delivered to anyone claiming a monopoly on the good life.

The Quick Verdict

Question	What the research found
Is there one “correct” source of purpose?	No: 16 distinct sources exist, and which one dominates shifts by culture and by person
What predicted a meaningful life in all four countries?	Mattering, perseverance, and service
What predicted happiness in all four countries?	Inner peace, by the widest margin
What stood out uniquely in Japan?	Occupational fulfillment: work mattered more there than anywhere else studied
What stood out uniquely in India?	Internal standards: living by your own principles, more predictive there than elsewhere
What stood out in Poland?	Family ranked as the second-strongest predictor of meaning
What did Isaiah Berlin argue in 1958?	Ultimate human values are genuinely plural and often incommensurable: no single ranking makes one good life objectively correct over another

The Quick Version

Mask, Folk, and Heine drew on more than 2,000 open-ended responses from American adults to identify 16 distinct sources of purpose, then tested how well each predicted meaning, happiness, and psychological richness across the US, Poland, Japan, and India. Mattering, perseverance, and service came out as the strongest meaning predictors everywhere. Inner peace won for happiness, everywhere. But the single highest-ranked source varied by culture: occupation in Japan, internal standards in India, family in Poland. Isaiah Berlin spent his career arguing that this kind of variation isn’t a measurement problem waiting to be solved. It’s what genuine value pluralism looks like when you actually go measure it.

What the Study Actually Tested

Most purpose research starts by picking a definition and measuring how much of it people have. This study did something more useful first: it asked what purpose is even made of.

The researchers started with over 2,000 open-ended responses from American adults describing what gives their lives purpose, then sorted the answers into 16 recurring categories. Not a theory imposed from above. A taxonomy built from what people actually said, then tightened into something you could measure. From there, they took the resulting scale to four countries chosen specifically because they sit at real cultural distance from each other: the United States, Poland, Japan, and India. Individualist and collectivist. Secular and religious. Different continents, different histories, different defaults about what a life is supposed to be for.

Then they tested each of the 16 sources against three separate outcomes: a meaningful life, a happy life, and a psychologically rich life (the newer third leg of well-being research, capturing variety and perspective-shift rather than just contentment or purpose). Same 16 sources, three different scorecards, four countries.

What Are the 16 Sources of Purpose?

The study identified these as the recurring categories people draw purpose from, based on the original US sample:

1. Self-improvement: becoming the best version of yourself
2. Family: supporting and caring for the people you’re related to
3. Relationships: finding and maintaining close connections
4. Religion/spirituality: living in accordance with religious or spiritual belief
5. Recognition: being respected and holding status
6. Happiness: enjoying life and feeling good, as its own source
7. Self-sufficiency: being able to take care of yourself, financially and otherwise
8. Material wealth: accumulating money and possessions
9. Internal standards: knowing what you stand for and living by it
10. Positive impact: making things better for other people or the world
11. Mattering: inspiring others, leaving something behind
12. Occupational fulfillment: finding a sense of calling through work
13. Perseverance: handling hardship without giving up on things
14. Physical health: taking care of your body
15. Inner peace: gratitude, and acceptance of what you can’t change
16. Service: serving your community or country

Sixteen is a lot of doors into the same room, a lot more than the tidy four-circle model this site has already picked apart once for flattening purpose into a single career-optimization diagram. And per the study, most people don’t walk through just one door: they draw on several, weighted differently, and the weighting itself is where the interesting variation lives.

What Held Steady Everywhere

Here’s the part that should complicate any easy “everything is relative” reading of this research: some things weren’t relative at all.

Mattering, perseverance, and service were the strongest predictors of a meaningful life in all four countries, not just on average. Inner peace was the strongest predictor of happiness everywhere it was tested. Happiness, self-sufficiency, and family all showed up in the top five sources in every single country. And at the bottom, consistently: religion and recognition ranked lowest across all four, even in a country as religiously observant as Poland.

That’s not nothing. It suggests something close to a genuine cross-cultural floor, a small set of sources that reliably do the heaviest lifting for meaning and happiness regardless of where you’re standing. If you’re looking for a place to start when purpose feels abstract, mattering to someone and finding some form of inner peace is a defensible bet almost anywhere on earth. We’ve written before about mattering specifically. This new data is a second, much larger confirmation that it isn’t a niche finding.

Where the Agreement Breaks

But “the floor is shared” and “the ranking is identical” are different claims, and the second one is false. This is where the study earns the “across cultures” half of its title.

In Japan, occupational fulfillment ranked unusually high, mattering more to both meaning and happiness than it did anywhere else in the sample. That’s a specific, testable finding, not a stereotype about work culture bolted onto the data afterward. In India, internal standards (knowing what you stand for and living accordingly) showed the strongest predictive power of any source tested, for meaning and for happiness both. In Poland, family came in as the second-strongest predictor of a meaningful life, a step ahead of where it landed elsewhere.

Three countries, three different top performers, on a scale built from the same 16 categories using the same instrument. That’s not noise. If it were noise, you’d expect the deviations to be random and unreplicable, not clustered into patterns that track recognizably with what each culture already emphasizes: American individualism looks different from Japanese occupational identity, which looks different again from Polish familism and from Indian traditions of internal moral cultivation.

Isaiah Berlin Called This in 1958

Here’s where the philosophy stops being decoration and starts being the actual explanation.

Isaiah Berlin delivered “Two Concepts of Liberty” as his inaugural lecture at Oxford in 1958, and it’s remembered mostly for the distinction in the title: negative liberty (freedom from interference) versus positive liberty (freedom to become your own master). But the argument underneath that distinction is the one this study quietly confirms: Berlin didn’t think human values could be arranged into one coherent, non-contradictory system with a single correct ranking at the top.

He called this value pluralism, and it’s a stranger, harder position than it sounds. It’s not relativism. Berlin wasn’t saying every value is equally good or that judgment is impossible. He thought some choices really are better than others, and he spent his life making arguments about which. What he denied was something narrower and more specific: that liberty, equality, justice, mercy, and self-fulfillment could all be maximized simultaneously, with no genuine loss, by any single arrangement of a life or a society. Choose more of one and you often, honestly, get less of another. Not because you chose badly. Because the values themselves don’t stack.

Berlin’s word for this was incommensurable: not measurable on one shared scale. A life built heavily around occupational fulfillment and a life built heavily around family aren’t two attempts at the same target where one is more accurate. They’re organized around different goods that don’t convert into each other at a fixed exchange rate. You can’t run the math and prove the Japanese respondent weighting occupation heavily is closer to “correct” than the Polish respondent weighting family heavily. There’s no formula sitting above both that could adjudicate it.

That’s the philosophical claim. The 2025 study is what it looks like when you go measure sixteen candidate goods, in four cultures, and check whether one of them wins outright. It doesn’t. Occupation wins in Japan. Internal standards win in India. Family edges up in Poland. Berlin didn’t have this data in 1958. He didn’t need it to make the argument, but it’s a striking thing to watch a piece of 20th-century political philosophy get something like a p-value seventy years later.

Why the Comparison Itself Is the Problem

This site has argued before that “find your purpose” is a broken command because it treats purpose as a hidden object rather than an activity you’re already engaged in. This is a related but distinct problem, and it deserves its own name: not the anxiety of not having found purpose, but the anxiety of having found a purpose and suspecting it’s the wrong flavor.

That anxiety runs on a specific, mostly unexamined premise: that there’s a hierarchy of purposes, with some more legitimate than others, and you can rank your own against your coworker’s or your neighbor’s to see how you’re doing. Berlin’s whole point is that the premise is the error, not the ranking. If ultimate values are genuinely plural, “is my purpose as valid as hers” isn’t a question with an answer waiting to be found. It’s a category mistake dressed up as humility, treating incommensurable goods as though they were secretly on the same scale, just waiting for someone to find the right converter.

Bertrand Russell diagnosed something adjacent to this when he called envy a habit of thinking in comparisons rather than a fact about your circumstances. The purpose-comparison version is a specialized case of the same habit. You’re not actually measuring whose life has more meaning. You’re running two incommensurable things through a shared scale that was never built to hold both, and then feeling bad about a number that was never real to begin with.

A Practice Worth Trying

None of this means introspection is pointless. It means pointing the introspection at the right question.

1. Name your actual top two or three sources, honestly. Not the ones you think should top the list. Look at where your energy and attention already go (family, occupation, service, inner peace, whichever from the sixteen fits) and write down what’s actually carrying the weight in your life right now.
2. Stop asking whether they’re the “right” ones. Ask instead whether they’re actually working: do they leave you steadier, more connected, more able to handle a hard week? That’s a question with a real answer. “Is family a more legitimate purpose than occupation” is not.
3. Borrow from the floor, not just the ceiling. Mattering, perseverance, service, and inner peace predicted meaning and happiness in every country tested. If your current sources feel thin, those four are a reasonable place to add weight, not because they’re objectively superior, but because they’re the closest thing this data has to a safe bet.
4. When you catch yourself ranking your purpose against someone else’s, name it as ranking. Not as a diagnostic. Just notice the move, the way you’d notice envy or comparison creeping in anywhere else. Naming it tends to loosen its grip faster than arguing yourself out of it.

What Value Pluralism Doesn’t License

Berlin was explicit about this: pluralism isn’t a blank check. He didn’t think every value claim deserves equal respect, and he watched the 20th century use “there’s no single correct value system” as cover for some genuinely monstrous arrangements. Recognizing that values are plural isn’t the same as refusing to judge between better and worse lives, better and worse societies, better and worse uses of a Tuesday.

The claim this post is actually making is narrower: among the ordinary, decent sources of purpose people build lives around (family, work, service, inner peace, self-improvement, and the rest of the sixteen) there isn’t a hidden master ranking that makes one of them the real answer and the others consolation prizes. That’s different from saying anything goes. It’s saying the thing you already have might not need defending against a hierarchy that was never real.

And this research, like all of it, has limits worth stating plainly. It measured self-reported sources of purpose against self-reported well-being in four countries, a meaningful spread, not the whole world. It can’t tell you which source will work for you, only which ones tend to work broadly and which patterns showed up where. If what you’re feeling isn’t purpose-comparison but something heavier (a flatness that doesn’t lift, a sense that nothing holds weight no matter how you rank it), that’s outside what philosophy or a well-being questionnaire can address, and worth bringing to a therapist rather than a reading list.

Berlin’s lecture ends without resolving the tension he spent an hour describing, and that’s the honest ending here too. Sixteen sources. No formula ranking them. Your coworker’s calling and your neighbor’s kids and your 6 a.m. run aren’t competing answers to the same question. They’re different questions, asked by different people, and the data from four countries just caught up to what the philosopher already suspected.

---

This post discusses cross-cultural psychology research and philosophical perspectives on value pluralism. It isn’t a substitute for professional mental health support. If what you’re feeling is persistent low mood or a sense that nothing feels meaningful, a therapist can help in ways a philosophy essay can’t.