Since the start of cinema, films have described how protagonists and antagonists alike seek to find a life purpose or make progress toward it. Almost a century ago, Citizen Kane (1941) presented the story of a man’s journey toward acquiring massive power throughout his lifespan, only to later recognize the emptiness involved in following this life direction. Much more recently, Soul (2020) told a story completely centered on one man’s journey toward discovering his purpose and, in turn, recognizing that purpose development can prove a lengthy process of trial and error. Indeed, the pursuit of purpose has served as the backdrop for hundreds of films, books, and stories over the years, underscoring two critical points about purpose. First, purpose is something valued and desired, and people have sought it since the start of humanity. Second, we have yet to discover the secret to purpose, despite myriad inquiries, both scientific and non-scientific in nature. And thus, fascination with the pursuit of purpose endures, among individuals, filmmakers, authors, philosophers, and scientists.

Where does this fascination come from? It seemingly results because purpose presents as a construct that is both relatable yet elusive. Even prior to adulthood, individuals understand purpose as something that provides a foundation for their lives, guiding them with a sense of direction from one day to the next (Hill et al., Reference Hill, Burrow, O’Dell and Thornton2010). Although variability in definitions occurs both among laypeople and scholars, these elements typically remain central to what it means to live a purposeful life. As such, one can understand why people across disciplines and centuries have been so focused on its development. However, the purpose is not something one simply finds and then they are done. Instead, it is a sense and feeling that fluctuates over time (e.g., Hill et al., Reference Hill, Turiano, Spiro and Mroczek2015; Pfund et al., Reference Pfund, Burrow and Hill2024; Ratner et al., Reference Ratner, Li, Zhu, Estevez and Burrow2023). It is something that requires careful attention over time and needs to be supported and cultivated through connections with close others and one’s environment. Moreover, although common themes can be identified between persons (see, e.g., Hill et al., Reference Hill, Burrow, O’Dell and Thornton2010; Ratner et al., Reference Ratner, Burrow, Burd and Hill2021), every individual has their own purpose and direction in life that is idiosyncratic and unique from all other purposes. Thus, while everyone may value purpose, there are no “quick and easy steps” to purpose development that work across individuals, and it takes work to keep up with one’s purpose over the lifespan.

Each of the chapters in this volume take up different aspects of this challenge. Chapter authors were tasked with writing about purpose as it relates to their work, whether it be empirical, philosophical, or sociological in nature. Given the ethereal nature of purpose, not all definitions will align across chapters, and in turn, strategies and recommendations too will differ. In so doing, we hope the current work highlights new directions for research and theory around purpose, which necessarily focuses on inclusiveness and diversity rather than a singular focus with respect to methods, perspectives, or definitions. In this opening chapter, we will start by describing three of the most prominent perspectives on purpose, in order to highlight that the diverse perspectives espoused in this chapter all have their roots in some common themes. Afterward, we will proceed by briefly presenting some of our recent efforts to advance the theoretical and conceptual discussion on purpose. In conclusion, we will set the stage for this book, highlighting the decisions we made when designing the book.

Purpose as an Ancient Construct

The roots of the discussion on purpose date back to the classic philosophical texts of the Ancient Greeks and Romans. Again, from the start, people have wrestled with what purpose meant and how to produce personally meaningful directions in life. Researchers have frequently credited Aristotle as a primary figure on this front (e.g., Fowers, Reference Fowers and Vittersø2016; Ryff, Reference Ryff2018; Waterman, Reference Waterman1990), building from his focus on how to live “the good life.” This focal point has resonated with scholars throughout the years, as living well reflects balancing motivations to act in accordance with one’s values, principles, and personally definitive goals. An entire area of inquiry has been dedicated to the psychological study of existential concerns and issues, building from, among other texts, Viktor Frankl’s integral work on meaning and purpose (Reference Frankl1985). Additional chapters in this volume will more fully discuss the philosophical roots of purpose, including how they are represented today in culturally construed ideas such as ikigai (Chapter 13 by Kotera, Wilkes, and Colman). For now, we wish to discuss how researchers from more recent decades have capitalized upon purpose as an ancient construct, in order to spark empirical inquiry on the topic.

Ryff’s Model of Psychological Well-Being. Influenced by the works of Aristotle, Carol Ryff is viewed as one of the main progenitors of the psychological study of purpose. Ryff designed the six-factor model of psychological well-being (Ryff, Reference Ryff1989, Reference Ryff2018; Ryff & Keyes, Reference Ryff and Keyes1995), after a substantial review of the past philosophical, sociological, and psychological theories on how to promote human wellness. This model sought to identify six factors that characterized well-being beyond the more hedonic components frequently evaluated in the literature at that time. These six components included personal growth, environmental mastery, positive relations with others, self-acceptance, autonomy, and, of course, purpose in life.

This model is described in great detail later in this volume (Chapter 12 by Willroth and Pfund), with respect to how purpose fits as something distinct from other affective and subjective indicators of well-being. For this chapter, we will emphasize how Ryff radically reshaped the field of inquiry into purpose on three fronts. First, Ryff’s work centered sense of purpose as an integral component of adaptive human development. Over the years, her work has consistently discussed sense of purpose as critical for positive human aging (Ryff, Reference Ryff2018; Ryff & Kim, Reference Ryff, Kim, Burrow and Hill2020), moving it from being a focal point mostly for philosophic debate. Second, to do so, Ryff moved the field toward the consideration of how purpose is felt rather than what one’s purpose is. No longer would purpose inquiry rely on big questions like “what is your purpose in life” and “what makes your life worthwhile.” Instead, Ryff situated purpose as an experience and feeling one has in daily life, asking people whether they agree with things like, “Some people may wander aimlessly through life, but I am not one of them” (Ryff, Reference Ryff1989; Ryff & Keyes, Reference Ryff and Keyes1995). Third, this point initially may seem like a matter of nuance, but it, in fact, is the central catalyst for the purpose research boon of the recent decades. Indeed, perhaps the biggest advance made by Ryff’s work was providing a validated measure for sense of purpose, that could allow between-person comparisons regardless of the fact that everyone’s purpose is unique. Although previous efforts had been made to develop purpose measures (e.g., Crumbaugh & Maholick, Reference Crumbaugh and Maholick1964), Ryff’s measure has stood the test of time, in part, because of its deep and thoughtful couching within the ancient perspectives of Aristotle and others. Indeed, now a quarter century later, it remains the most frequently employed measure in the psychological study of purpose today.

Purpose as a self-organizing life aim. While Ryff’s model led to a resurgence of research on sense of purpose as a between-person variable, a need presented itself for understanding what purpose does at the individual level. Two decades following Ryff’s (Reference Ryff1989) pivotal model, an influential review paper provided a framework for considering the role of purpose in an individual’s life. In this article, McKnight and Kashdan (Reference McKnight and Kashdan2009) provided what has become one of the most widely regarded definitions for purpose in the field, namely, that “purpose is a central, self-organizing life aim that organizes and stimulates goals, manages behaviors, and provides a sense of meaning” (p. 242). This definition has been frequently called upon for at least three critical reasons. First, it elevates purpose in life as a construct that is hierarchically superior to one’s short- and long-term goals. In so doing, McKnight and Kashdan (Reference McKnight and Kashdan2009) provide researchers with a perspective on how it leads to self-direction, insofar that purpose directs the individual toward goals relevant to its pursuit, which in turn yields certain behaviors in daily life (see also Lewis, Reference Lewis2020 for a discussion of the purpose-goal connection). Second, the authors situate purpose as a life aim, a term that underscores the fact that purpose is not something achievable in nature. Instead, it is a broader aim that directs one throughout the lifespan, and as such, one should commit to a purpose that allows for personal guidance in the decades to come. Third, the authors rightly acknowledge the self-organizing nature of purpose. One’s purpose in life is deeply personal and committing to a purpose can help individuals clarify and organize their self-concept with respect to what they value, what motivates them, and what they view as personally definitive. Though perhaps seemingly minor, the wording around self-organization has sparked a burgeoning literature over the past decade, situating purpose as a construct of clear relevance to the study of identity development (Burrow & Hill, Reference Burrow and Hill2011; Hill & Burrow, Reference Hill and Burrow2012; Sumner et al., Reference Sumner, Burrow and Hill2015).

Building from these definitional tenets, the authors then are able to situate purpose as a construct unique from others in the field (McKnight & Kashdan, Reference McKnight and Kashdan2009). For instance, some individuals may develop purpose in response to their religious orientation, but it need not come from religious or faith-based sources. Indeed, research shows that most individuals do not define purpose as having a religious element (Hill et al., Reference Hill, Burrow, O’Dell and Thornton2010; Ratner et al., Reference Ratner, Li, Zhu, Estevez and Burrow2023). Another example comes with respect to meaning in life, or the belief that life is coherent, significant, and matters to others (Costin & Vignoles, Reference Costin and Vignoles2020; Martela & Steger, Reference Martela and Steger2016). As the definition notes, purposeful living could give rise to meaning, but meaning in life again can come from several sources that need not provide goal direction in daily life. Again, research has supported this claim insofar that purpose and meaning can be measured as separate constructs (Costin & Vignoles, Reference Costin and Vignoles2020; Martela & Steger, Reference Martela and Steger2023), and even show distinct developmental trajectories over the lifespan: whereas sense of purpose may be vulnerable to declines in older adulthood (Hill et al., Reference Hill, Olaru and Allemand2023), meaning in life levels seem to continue upward throughout the adult years (Steger et al., Reference Steger, Oishi and Kashdan2009). By presenting these distinctions, along with the clarification on how purpose differs from goals, this literature review provided a critical step forward in our understanding of how purpose may provide manifold benefits to health, well-being, and personal development, as will be discussed throughout the chapters of this volume.

Purpose as a Nascent Construct

These foundational works left us with critical resources with which to study purpose as a psychological construct. That said, they also provided the field with a number of questions to address, which have catalyzed the nascent research on purpose. We have chosen three such questions to focus upon in this section, which reflects questions that have been at the root of the discussion on purpose since its inception. And yet, they still present as current and future directions for research inquiry. Indeed, we present in this section examples of how our research programs have been directed by efforts to consider each of the three.

Is purpose accessible to all? This first question speaks to a common refrain we have received after giving talks and interviews on purpose, and doubts about its universal accessibility have been raised by several in the field. For instance, the foundational review just described (McKnight & Kashdan, Reference McKnight and Kashdan2009) clearly states that “purpose may not necessarily be available to every person” (p. 243). The authors suggest that the capacity to grasp abstract concepts is necessary in order to have a purpose, which has been echoed by researchers who question whether the purpose is developmentally relevant prior to adolescence (Hill & Burrow, Reference Hill and Burrow2021). Moreover, the authors continue by suggesting that any insult or deficiency in self-insight and planning skills may negate one’s potential for purpose, including non-normative cognitive decline later in the lifespan (McKnight & Kashdan, Reference McKnight and Kashdan2009). Beyond cognitive capacity, one may question whether other resources, logistical and psychological, are necessary for the purpose of development.

Although it is difficult to answer this question with a firm yes or no, extant research seems to point more toward the idea that purpose is widely accessible. Countering concerns about cognitive decline, researchers have shown that even individuals in later stages of dementia tend to report relatively high levels of meaning in life (Dewitte et al., Reference Dewitte, Hill, Vandenbulcke and Dezutter2022). Again, meaning may or may not come from purposeful engagement, but given the close connection, these findings are promising in nature. In addition, adults with memory concerns tend to report relatively high levels of sense of purpose, which often exceed even what their close partners expect (Wynn et al., Reference Wynn, Ju and Hill2021). While some cognitive development is likely necessary before an individual can establish a future-oriented life aim, like abstract reasoning ability, this work is encouraging insofar that people may still feel purposeful even after

With respect to finances, research shows that sense of purpose is related to greater income and net worth (Hill et al., Reference Hill, Turiano, Mroczek and Burrow2016). However, those findings suggest that more purposeful individuals may be more likely to accrue wealth over time, rather than the idea that financial well-being is necessary for purpose. Instead, several studies now suggest that associations between socioeconomic status and sense of purpose, though positive in direction, tend to be very modest in magnitude (Hill et al., Reference Hill, Turiano, Mroczek and Burrow2016; Pfund & Hill, Reference Pfund and Hill2024). Moreover, among working adults, research shows that having satisfying work matters more for sense of purpose than a prestigious or high-paying job (Weston et al., Reference Weston, Hill and Cardador2021). In summary, at the least, one can say that financial success is not a prerequisite for purpose development. However, that is not to say that all potential life purposes may be accessible to all people, which is the focus of the next question.

Can everyone pursue the purpose they wish? Which purposes are accessible to an individual depends on several factors beyond their control. For these reasons, researchers have suggested that the field should move away from terms like “finding” purpose, which place the bulk of the work on the person (Burrow, Reference Burrow2023; Chapter 3 by Burrow and Rice in this volume). Instead, the study of purpose development requires a broader consideration of the person-in-situation. Individuals develop within intertwined socioecological systems, such as their immediate social circles, their community, and ultimately their broader cultural structure (Bronfenbrenner, Reference Bronfenbrenner1979). Each of these contexts presents challenges and opportunities for the cultivation of purpose.

Recently, we have proposed two dimensions for considering the accessibility of purpose within these socioecological systems (Burrow et al., Reference Burrow, Agans, Jeon and Creim2021). First, one can ask whether a given purpose is congruent with the expectations, norms, and practices of the individual’s environment. Individuals will likely find that a given purpose in life is more accessible, if that life aim aligns with what their friends, family, and community expect them to pursue. Second, we have to consider whether the individual’s purpose is feasible given their ecological and social systems. For instance, someone motivated to address sociopolitical strife on a different continent will find their life aim to be less feasible than another person striving to change political structures in their home country. Much greater attention is paid to these considerations later in this volume (see Chapter 3 by Burrow and Rice; Chapter 14 by Burrow & Hill). However, we raise these points here as authors throughout will be discussing issues related to congruence and feasibility; for instance, several chapters of this volume describe how the pursuit of purpose is construed and contoured by an individual’s identity, their sociocultural structure, and how their identity is received within the sociocultural structure. In this respect, while purpose itself may be accessible to all, it remains unclear whether all can pursue any potential purpose.

Finally, how do we actually cultivate and develop a purpose in life? Herein lies the singular question that has motivated both the ancient yet nascent discussion of purpose. Again, there are no simple steps to finding purpose, and researchers have noted that individuals may take very different routes to develop a purpose (Hill et al., Reference Hill, Sumner and Burrow2014; Kashdan & McKnight, Reference Kashdan and McKnight2009). Some individuals may cultivate a purpose through proactive exploration of different possibilities for their life aim, whereas others may develop one through social modeling. Additionally, some adults have reported finding a purpose in life following a major life event or epiphany.

As such, it is impossible to create a framework that can properly extend to all the potential, individualized pathways to purpose development. However, we have recently proposed the Purpose As Trait, Habit, and State (PATHS) model to describe how purpose may become ingrained or entrenched over time (Hill et al., Reference Hill, Pfund and Allemand2023). A greater discussion of this model is presented in Chapter 8 by Allemand and Olaru, and Chapter 9 by Hill, Dewitte, and Lewis). For now, we wish to highlight two tenets from the model. First, the PATHS model helps integrate the sense of purpose and purpose in life literatures into one framework, bridging the divergent literatures from the different aforementioned camps. Second, in so doing, the model proposes that the purpose development journey may begin through feeling purposeful in a given moment or activity. As a consequence of feeling purposeful, an individual may be motivated to develop habitual routines to allow them to feel purposeful with greater frequency. Ultimately, planning around these habits can provide the individual with insights into what life direction they should pursue in the future.

Review of the Current Volume

These questions and several more will be raised throughout the chapters in this volume. Chapters 2–4 tackle the extent to which one can find or cultivate purpose, and how that may depend on the form of purpose. To start, Lapsley contends that questions of purpose must start with their philosophical roots, and researchers must context the extent to which one follows a “good” or “moral” purpose in their lives, with an eye toward the common good. In Chapter 2, Côté considers questions surrounding purpose accessibility and feasibility through a sociological lens, highlighting how modernity has led to additional challenges (and opportunities) for human development and purposeful pursuits. Afterward, in Chapter 3, Burrow and Rice provide a thorough accounting of how perspectives on purpose development cannot be individual-centric, but they necessitate consideration again of the person-in-situation. In turn, it serves as an integration of the viewpoints presented by Lapsley in Chapter 2 and Côté in Chapter 4, insofar that Burrow and Rice present the need to articulate that purpose is both personal, and yet greatly shaped by cultural norms and morals, as well as the broader socioeconomic context.

Moreover, Chapter 3 provides a transition point to the next section of our volume, focused on developmental narratives on purpose. Chapters 5–7 (by López-Madrigal et al., Bowman et al., and Ratner, respectively) will center on the transition to adulthood. This emphasis on the adolescent-to-adult years reflects the oft-noted point that this developmental period may be particularly informative regarding how people cultivate a purpose in life (e.g., Burrow et al., Reference Burrow, Agans, Jeon and Creim2021; Hill & Burrow, Reference Hill and Burrow2021; Pfund & Lewis, Reference Pfund, Lewis, Hill and Allemand2020). However, questions regarding purpose cultivation and development do not end at this time, as discussed in the remaining two chapters. First, in Chapter 8, Allemand and Olaru describe how the PATHS model can be employed for changing purposes using mobile interventions at any stage of adulthood. Second, Hill, Lewis, and Dewitte, in Chapter 9, consider how purpose development aligns with the lifelong tasks of identity development. Both of these chapters thus highlight purpose as a life aim, namely, one that requires attention throughout life.

Our final section combines the ancient with the nascent in discussing how different perspectives can attend to the study of purpose, as a moral, prosocial, or virtuous construct. First, Toosi, Wilkins, and Wellman, in Chapter 10, consider how religious beliefs may lead people to both prosocial and antisocial pursuits, requiring us to attend again to Aristotle’s original concerns regarding the “good life.” Second, Miller-Perrin, in Chapter 11, further reviews how religious faith plays a role in purpose development, harkening to McKnight and Kashdan’s (Reference Kashdan and McKnight2009) points regarding when and how religiosity differs from sense of purpose. Third, Willroth and Pfund, in Chapter 12, provide a follow-up to Ryff’s (Reference Ryff1989) original model, clarifying where things currently stand with respect to how purpose is linked to personal well-being. Finally, Kotera, Wilkes, and Colman, in Chapter 13, provide an international perspective on the good life, by discussing ikigai and how it connects to mental health and psychological well-being.

In sum, the current volume will attend to all the aforementioned questions raised and several more. These chapters reflect how contemporary research on purpose is necessarily rooted in the past. And yet, despite centuries of inquiry, purpose still motivates researchers, philosophers, and interventionists alike toward novel directions to this day. As such, we hope this volume sparks as many ideas for you as it has for us as editors.