RETHINKING HAPPINESS: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF LIVING WELL
Professor Mohsen Joshanloo on the science of happiness, cultural differences in well-being, the fear of happiness, and what it truly means to live a meaningful life.
A Conversation with Professor Mohsen Joshanloo | Conducted by Sundram Kumar | Astra Global Ventures
PROFESSOR MOHSEN JOSHANLOO
Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Keimyung University · Honorary Principal Fellow, Centre for Wellbeing Science, University of Melbourne
SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Mohsen Joshanloo is a personality and cross-cultural psychologist who studies mental well-being, quality of life, personality traits, emotions, and successful aging. His work aims to broaden the global scope of psychological science through international collaboration and the integration of culturally diverse concepts and data from six continents. He specializes in advanced statistical and computational methods. He is a Professor of Psychology at Keimyung University and an Honorary Principal Fellow at the Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne.
OFFICIAL LINKS & RESEARCH:
• Academic Profile Website: Professor Mohsen Joshanloo Academic Home
• Selected Publication 1 (Open Access): Frontiers in Psychology DOI
• Selected Publication 2: Applied Research in Quality of Life DOI
• Selected Publication 3: Springer Research Publication DOI
01. Your work brings together well-being, personality psychology, culture, measurement, and quantitative methods. What originally drew you to the scientific study of happiness and human well-being?
Professor Mohsen Joshanloo: My interest in well-being research emerged quite unexpectedly during my undergraduate studies. Around 2003, I came across several articles on well-being, and I found the topic immediately fascinating. The idea that psychology could scientifically study what makes life go well for people was both intellectually interesting and practically important. Later, as my studies progressed, I became increasingly interested in cultural psychology, which led me to explore how well-being is understood and experienced across different societies.
02. Your academic journey has taken you through Iran, New Zealand, Australia, and South Korea. How have living and working across different cultural environments changed the kinds of questions you ask as a psychologist?
Professor Mohsen Joshanloo: Absolutely. Living and working in different countries has had a profound influence on the way I think about psychological questions. It has given me the opportunity to interact with people from very different cultural backgrounds and to observe firsthand how values, social norms, and ways of life vary across societies. These experiences have continually reminded me that many assumptions that seem obvious within one cultural context may not hold in another. They have encouraged me to ask broader questions, to be more cautious about generalizing findings, and to pay closer attention to cultural diversity in psychological research. In many ways, these experiences have been both enriching and inspiring for my work in cultural psychology.
03. After years of studying well-being across cultures, what is one widely held assumption about happiness that you now think deserves to be reconsidered?
Professor Mohsen Joshanloo: One assumption that deserves reconsideration is the idea that well-being means the same thing everywhere and has remained essentially unchanged throughout human history. My research has led me to view well-being as a concept that evolves across time and varies across cultural contexts. Although some themes, such as social relationships, appear to be widely valued, even these shared themes can have different meanings and expressions across societies. The way people define a good life is influenced by history, culture, social institutions, and changing circumstances. For this reason, I think we should be cautious about assuming that we have identified a single, universal definition of well-being that applies equally to all people, places, and historical periods.
04. People often use happiness, life satisfaction, mental well-being, meaning, and flourishing as if they were interchangeable. How would you distinguish these ideas for a general audience?
Professor Mohsen Joshanloo: Although these terms are often used interchangeably, they refer to different aspects of well-being. Happiness is mainly about people’s emotional lives and whether they generally feel good. Life satisfaction is a person’s overall assessment of how their life is going. Meaning concerns a sense of purpose and direction, a sense of significance, and a sense that life makes sense. These dimensions are related but not identical. For example, a person may find life highly meaningful during a difficult period, or may feel happy without having a strong sense of purpose. Mental well-being is a broader concept that brings these dimensions together and also includes positive functioning in personal and social life. I do not typically use the term flourishing, but I believe it is often used in the literature as a broad umbrella term for various dimensions of well-being.
05. Is a happy life necessarily a good life? Can someone experience high life satisfaction while lacking meaning, personal growth, purpose, or psychological functioning?
Professor Mohsen Joshanloo: The answer depends on how we define a good life. If happiness is considered an important component of well-being, then a happy life certainly contains an important element of a good life. However, many people would argue that a good life involves more than feeling good. It may also include meaning, personal growth, positive relationships, contribution to others, and the ability to function effectively in daily life. Likewise, it is possible for someone to be satisfied with their life while lacking some of these qualities. For this reason, I think emotional well-being is only part of the story. Feeling good matters, but so does functioning well, both personally and socially. A comprehensive understanding of well-being should include both.
06. Your work repeatedly brings attention to eudaimonic well-being. What does a genuinely flourishing life contain that a simple measure of feeling happy may fail to capture?
Professor Mohsen Joshanloo: Eudaimonic well-being is a technical term that refers to positive functioning rather than simply feeling good. One useful way of understanding well-being is to distinguish between emotional well-being and positive functioning. Emotional well-being includes happiness, positive emotions, and life satisfaction. Eudaimonic well-being focuses more on qualities such as purpose, personal growth, competence, autonomy, and positive relationships. The core idea is that well-being is not only about how people feel but also about how they live. A person may feel happy but still struggle in important areas of life. In contrast, a fully mentally healthy life involves both positive feelings and the ability to function effectively and pursue meaningful goals.
07. If you had to describe a psychologically rich definition of human flourishing that could speak to both individualistic and collectivistic societies, what would it include?
Professor Mohsen Joshanloo: This is a difficult question because cultures differ in how they define a good life. Nevertheless, I think a broad definition is possible. I would describe flourishing, or what I would more commonly call mental well-being, as the combination of feeling well and functioning well. It includes feeling well and the skills and capabilities needed to navigate life’s challenges effectively. What differs across cultures is often not the importance of these broad domains but their specific content. Different societies may have different ideas about meaning, success, relationships, and personal responsibility. Any culturally inclusive definition of flourishing should recognize both common human needs and the diversity of ways in which people pursue a good life.
08. Your recent work on the cultural foundations of well-being argues that influential psychological models can carry assumptions rooted in individualistic and independent views of the self. What has mainstream psychology potentially misunderstood about well-being?
Professor Mohsen Joshanloo: I believe many contemporary psychological theories of well-being reflect the intellectual history of modern Western societies. Concepts such as authenticity, self-expression, personal choice, and individual self-fulfillment occupy a central place in many influential models. These are important values, but they are also cultural values. As a result, some psychological theories may overestimate the universality of these ideals. In many parts of the world, well-being is understood not only in terms of being true to oneself, but also in terms of fulfilling social obligations, maintaining harmony, and contributing to family and community. My concern is not that mainstream psychology is wrong, but that some of its models may be more culturally specific than is often assumed.
09. Could fulfilling responsibilities to family, community, or tradition contribute to a person’s well-being even when it reduces some forms of personal autonomy or self-expression?
Professor Mohsen Joshanloo: Yes. I think this question reflects a common assumption that responsibilities to others necessarily come at the expense of autonomy and well-being. Yet for many people around the world, the opposite is often true. Family obligations, commitments to one’s community, and cultural traditions can provide a strong sense of meaning, belonging, identity, and purpose. They are not simply regarded as constraints on individual freedom. A view of well-being that focuses primarily on self-expression and personal choice may therefore overlook important sources of human well-being. Different cultures offer different pathways to a good life, and for many people, one of those pathways involves contributing to others and caring for them, even when doing so requires sacrificing some degree of personal autonomy or self-expression.
10. How can researchers distinguish a genuine cultural difference in what makes people well from a measurement problem caused by applying Western concepts to other societies?
Professor Mohsen Joshanloo: This is a central challenge in cross-cultural research. Fortunately, we have statistical and methodological tools that help us evaluate whether measures function similarly across cultures. Researchers can test for measurement equivalence and identify items that may have different meanings in different groups. Even with these techniques, however, caution is important. Personally, I tend to place greater emphasis on cultural differences that are moderate or large in magnitude, rather than very small differences that could partly reflect measurement issues. Some observed differences undoubtedly stem from measurement limitations, but many are also genuine and substantively meaningful cultural differences.
11. As globalization exposes people to multiple cultural models of the good life, do you expect well-being to become more universal—or more culturally complex?
Professor Mohsen Joshanloo: I think both processes are occurring simultaneously. Globalization has increased the spread of ideas about the good life across societies. For example, values such as authenticity and self-expression are becoming more prominent in many non-Western settings, particularly among highly educated and urban populations. At the same time, ideas associated with harmony, balance, and social connectedness have gained influence beyond their traditional cultural origins. However, I do not think this means we are moving toward a single universal conception of well-being. People’s lives, social institutions, and cultural traditions remain highly diverse. Moreover, imported ideas are often adapted and reinterpreted within local cultural contexts. So while there may be some convergence in values, I expect well-being to remain culturally complex for the foreseeable future.
12. You have studied fear or aversion to happiness for many years. Why can happiness itself become an uncomfortable or threatening experience for some people?
Professor Mohsen Joshanloo: First, fear of happiness does not necessarily mean that people are literally afraid of being happy. It usually refers to discomfort, hesitation, or negative beliefs about happiness and positive emotions. Research shows that people differ considerably in this regard. Some people are very comfortable with happiness, whereas others worry about it or feel uneasy when good things happen. There are many possible reasons. Some people struggle with emotion regulation and find both positive and negative emotions difficult to manage. Others may have had life experiences that taught them that positive experiences are often followed by disappointment. Cultural and religious beliefs can also play a role. So aversion to happiness is not caused by any single factor, but can emerge from a combination of personal experiences, personality, emotional habits, and cultural influences.
13. What psychological or cultural beliefs might lead a person to see happiness as fragile, undeserved, uncontrollable, or something that could invite future disappointment?
Professor Mohsen Joshanloo: Many cultures contain beliefs that encourage caution about happiness. For example, some people believe that excessive happiness may lead to disappointment, attract misfortune, encourage selfishness, or distract people from more important goals. Such beliefs are often transmitted through religion, cultural traditions, or everyday socialization. At the psychological level, factors such as nihilistic beliefs, difficulties with emotion regulation, perfectionism, low self-esteem, chronic anxiety, low mood, negative expectations about the future, and certain childhood experiences may contribute to these concerns.
14. Your work on happiness as a social signal raises questions about how people communicate happiness to others. In the age of social media, has happiness also become a form of social performance?
Professor Mohsen Joshanloo: To some extent, yes. In many contemporary societies, expressing happiness has acquired a performative dimension. Social media has amplified this tendency by creating environments where people regularly display carefully selected aspects of their lives. More broadly, there is increasing pressure in workplaces, friendships, and public settings to appear positive, optimistic, and emotionally well. This can encourage people to display happiness even when they do not genuinely feel it. At the same time, negative emotions are often concealed or discouraged. As a result, the public expression of happiness may not always reflect people’s actual emotional experiences.
15. Your recent study comparing Egypt, Oman, and Poland found important differences in how well-being is understood and predicted. What finding from that research do you think international psychology should pay the most attention to?
Professor Mohsen Joshanloo: One aspect of that study that I find particularly important is that we shifted the focus from asking which culture is happier to asking how different cultures conceptualize well-being. Much cross-cultural research focuses on average levels of well-being, but understanding what people mean by well-being is equally important. Our findings suggested that lay concepts of well-being in the Muslim samples were generally more holistic, collectivistic, religious or spiritual, and virtue-oriented (less hedonistic) than those commonly found in Western psychological models. This highlights the importance of recognizing that well-being is not understood in exactly the same way across cultures.
16. Well-being is subjective, multidimensional, and culturally shaped. What makes a psychological measure of well-being genuinely valid across countries and cultures?
Professor Mohsen Joshanloo: Developing culturally valid measures remains an ongoing challenge in psychology. Good measures should capture aspects of well-being that are relevant across diverse cultural contexts, while avoiding unnecessary dependence on the assumptions of any single culture. The language should be simple, easily translatable, and free from culture-specific expressions that may not travel well across societies. Strong psychometric testing is also essential. Importantly, measure development should not begin solely in Western contexts and then be exported elsewhere. Researchers should involve diverse cultural groups from the earliest stages of development to ensure broader cultural coverage and relevance.
17. Why is measurement invariance so important when researchers compare psychological scores across nations? What can go wrong when apparently identical questions are interpreted differently?
Professor Mohsen Joshanloo: Measurement invariance helps us determine whether a measure is functioning similarly across groups. If people in different cultures interpret the same question differently, observed differences in scores may reflect differences in measurement rather than true differences in well-being. This is why testing measurement invariance has become a standard part of cross-cultural research. In practice, some degree of measurement non-equivalence is very common. The goal is not to eliminate it completely, which is often impossible, but to detect it, account for it, and interpret findings with appropriate caution.
18. You recently developed a six-item short form of Ryff’s psychological well-being measure. What are the greatest advantages of shorter psychological instruments, and what should researchers be careful not to lose?
Professor Mohsen Joshanloo: The demand for shorter measures has existed throughout the history of psychology. Researchers often have limited time, resources, and survey space, especially in large-scale and cross-cultural studies. Shorter instruments reduce participant burden, improve response quality, and make data collection more feasible in settings with fewer resources. However, brevity should not come at the expense of validity. Researchers must ensure that short measures still adequately represent the underlying construct and maintain acceptable levels of reliability and psychometric quality.
19. If you could change one thing about the way governments, organizations, or researchers currently measure human well-being, what would you change?
Professor Mohsen Joshanloo: I would encourage a more multidimensional and culturally inclusive approach. Too often, well-being is assessed using a single indicator, which can provide only a partial picture of people’s lives. Well-being includes emotional, cognitive, social, and psychological dimensions, and all of these deserve attention. I would also place greater emphasis on cultural validity and reducing cultural bias in the measures we use. A more comprehensive and culturally sensitive assessment strategy would provide a richer and more accurate understanding of human well-being.
20. You have increasingly used machine learning to examine complex psychological and sociocultural questions. What can machine learning reveal that conventional psychological methods may struggle to detect?
Professor Mohsen Joshanloo: Machine learning is particularly useful when researchers have many predictors and highly complex data. In such situations, some of the assumptions of conventional statistical methods, such as linear relationships or low correlations among predictors, may not hold. Machine learning algorithms are often better able to handle these complexities and identify patterns that might otherwise be overlooked. Another advantage is that machine learning can be more exploratory. In psychology, we often begin with theories and test specific hypotheses. That remains important, but sometimes theories are incomplete or fail to capture the complexity of the data. Machine learning allows researchers to learn more directly from the data and discover patterns that existing theories may not predict. For me, it is not a replacement for theory, but an additional tool that can help us learn from data in new ways.
21. Do you think machine learning will eventually change not only how psychologists test theories, but also how psychological theories themselves are generated?
Professor Mohsen Joshanloo: Yes, I think it already is. Throughout the history of psychology, theory development has often preceded data analysis. Machine learning and other data-driven approaches allow us to reverse that process to some extent by identifying patterns first and then building theories to explain them. I do not think psychology should abandon theory-driven research. Theories remain essential for explanation, interpretation, and cumulative scientific progress. However, I also believe that psychology benefits from greater openness to exploratory research. Data-driven methods can help reveal unexpected relationships, challenge existing assumptions, and suggest new theoretical directions. Ultimately, the most productive approach is likely to combine strong theory with strong data analysis and acknowledge the importance of exploration, allowing theories to be continually refined in light of new evidence.
22. Your work on wealth-adjusted life satisfaction asks us to look beyond national wealth and consider how effectively economic resources translate into well-being. What motivated this approach?
Professor Mohsen Joshanloo: One motivation was my concern that some dominant approaches to assessing national well-being may unintentionally favor wealthy societies and overlook strengths found in the majority world. Wealth clearly matters for well-being, but it is not the whole story. I wanted to examine how effectively societies convert their available economic resources into well-being rather than focusing only on absolute levels of life satisfaction. This approach highlights cases where relatively less wealthy societies perform better than expected and where some wealthier societies perform less well than their economic resources would predict. In doing so, it helps identify resilience, strengths, and success stories that can otherwise remain hidden in global well-being rankings.
23. Your research across 116 countries connects eudaimonic well-being with perceived job quality and, in turn, with subjective well-being. What does this tell us about the relationship between meaningful work and a good life?
Professor Mohsen Joshanloo: One of the main messages of that research is that eudaimonic well-being should not be viewed only as an outcome. It can also be a resource that helps people build better lives and careers. Qualities such as purpose, competence, autonomy, and positive functioning can influence the kinds of jobs people obtain and how successfully they engage with their work, and how effectively they shape their work into something meaningful and fulfilling. Work and life are deeply interconnected. People who function well psychologically often find it easier to develop satisfying careers and benefit from opportunities in the workplace. In turn, higher-quality work contributes to greater well-being. This suggests that meaningful work and personal well-being reinforce one another.
24. If organizations genuinely wanted to improve employee well-being rather than simply offering wellness initiatives, which psychological and workplace conditions should they prioritize?
Professor Mohsen Joshanloo: Organizations should certainly pay attention to employees’ happiness, but well-being involves more than enjoyment and occasional wellness activities. Equally important are the eudaimonic aspects of well-being, such as autonomy, competence, purpose, and positive relationships. In practice, this means treating employees with respect, involving them in decision-making, giving them opportunities to use and develop their skills, allowing some flexibility in how they perform their work, and creating conditions where their work feels meaningful. These changes often require thoughtful leadership rather than large budgets. In my view, employees are most likely to thrive when they feel valued, trusted, and able to contribute in meaningful ways.
25. Your cross-national research suggests that autonomy is positively related to well-being around the world, but the relationship is stronger in wealthier and more individualistic societies. What does this tell us about the interaction between universal needs and cultural context?
Professor Mohsen Joshanloo: I think this finding nicely illustrates how a value can be both universal and culturally variable at the same time. People everywhere generally value autonomy and prefer having some degree of choice and freedom in their lives. However, the meaning and importance of autonomy can differ across cultural contexts. Our findings showed that autonomy is associated with well-being in virtually all societies, but the association is stronger in more individualistic cultures. This does not mean that people in collectivistic cultures do not value autonomy. Rather, it suggests that there are other valuable pathways to well-being in these contexts, and autonomy is not always the most prominent or highly valued route to living well.
26. Modern societies increasingly celebrate independence, choice, and self-expression. Could excessive individualism eventually undermine the relationships, responsibilities, and social bonds that also support well-being?
Professor Mohsen Joshanloo: As a cross-cultural psychologist, I would note that independence, choice, and self-expression are generally valued across cultures, but they tend to be more strongly associated with well-being in individualistic societies. Therefore, I see no reason to discourage these values in contexts where they are culturally meaningful and contribute positively to people’s lives. At the same time, other areas of psychology highlight the importance of balancing autonomy with connectedness. Human beings need both personal freedom and meaningful relationships. The challenge is not to choose one over the other, but to ensure that neither is pursued to the exclusion of the other.
27. As technology gives people more freedom to choose how they work, communicate, consume information, and construct their identities, could greater choice paradoxically create greater psychological pressure?
Professor Mohsen Joshanloo: It could. Some research suggests that having too many options can sometimes make decisions more difficult and reduce satisfaction with the choices people make. Greater freedom can also create pressure to make the “right” choice and to take personal responsibility for outcomes. At the same time, I do not think the solution is less freedom. The long-term direction of many societies has been toward increasing individual choice and autonomy. Rather than resisting this trend, we need to understand how people can adapt to it and manage its psychological challenges. Greater freedom may sometimes bring greater uncertainty, but it also creates opportunities that many people value highly.
28. After spending much of your career studying what helps people flourish across cultures, countries, and generations, what has your research taught you about what human beings ultimately need—not simply to feel good, but to live well?
Professor Mohsen Joshanloo: People sometimes assume that a better life comes from acquiring more things, waiting for major life events or milestones, pursuing extraordinary experiences and achievements, or constantly searching for something else to do, somewhere else to be, or a different life altogether. While such experiences can contribute to well-being and enrich life, I believe they are rarely its foundation. What research increasingly highlights is the importance of everyday life. Well-being is often found in ordinary activities, everyday interactions, small but frequent pleasures, effective coping with daily hassles, and active engagement with the things we do day after day. In general, being mentally, socially, and physically engaged in one’s current life appears more important for long-term well-being than constantly seeking satisfaction elsewhere. For many people, living well is less about escaping their current life and more about participating actively in it.
HELP KEEP IDEAS ALIVE
Great ideas deserve to be heard, preserved, and passed forward.
Astra Global Ventures exists to bring thoughtful conversations, original perspectives, and meaningful stories into the world—and to preserve them for readers today and generations to come.
If this work has meant something to you, please consider supporting our independent publishing work. Your contribution helps us continue the research, editing, design, and publishing that bring meaningful voices and ideas to life.
Every contribution, whatever its size, helps us keep creating and sharing work that matters.
SUPPORT INDEPENDENT PUBLISHING
For international supporters, you can contribute securely through PayPal:
Scan the QR code or use the PayPal link below to support our independent publishing work.
Support Astra Global Ventures via PayPalThank you for helping meaningful ideas live beyond the moment.