SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2026
From happiness to meaning: a systematic review of quantitative research on core constructs in positive psychology.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Since its formal inception in 1998, positive psychology has generated a rich and rapidly expanding empirical literature centred on constructs such as happiness, meaning, flourishing, hope, gratitude, resilience, character strengths, flow, and self-determination. Despite this proliferation, the construct landscape remains fragmented, with inconsistent operationalization, overlapping measurement frameworks, and unresolved theoretical tensions between hedonic and eudaimonic accounts of well-being. Objective: This systematic review aims to map and synthesize the empirical evidence base underpinning core constructs in positive psychology research, evaluate the theoretical relationships among constructs, assess methodological quality, and identify priority directions for future inquiry. Methods: This review is restricted to peer-reviewed quantitative empirical studies (randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental designs, longitudinal cohort studies, and cross-sectional studies with validated instruments); qualitative empirical studies and purely philosophical or theoretical works were excluded. A systematic search of PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL was conducted for peer-reviewed studies published between January 2000 and April 2025. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), 2020 guidelines informed the review protocol. Seventy-one primary studies and fifteen meta-analyses met all inclusion criteria. Results: Findings reveal robust but construct-specific evidence bases. Hedonic well-being (happiness, positive affect, life satisfaction) and eudaimonic well-being (meaning, purpose, engagement) demonstrated the strongest and most replicated evidence. Gratitude, hope, character strengths, and resilience showed consistently positive effects across diverse populations. Emerging constructs including digital well-being, AI-mediated meaning-making, and gamification-enhanced engagement demonstrated nascent but promising evidence bases. Significant methodological limitations were identified including construct proliferation, measurement heterogeneity, and Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) sampling bias. Conclusion: The positive psychology construct landscape is scientifically substantive yet theoretically fragmented. Integrative frameworks, cross-cultural validation, and technology-informed delivery represent the most critical future priorities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.