Eudaimonia as Personal Growth: Decades of Research and Needed Future Directions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI was very interested in the topic of the paper, and therefore I was eager to read it. I was however somehow disappointed to see that the announced topic - personal growth - got progressively marginalized across the paper sections, and specifically in Section 4.
Section 2 and 3 clearly depict the conceptual background, model and research studies investigating personal growth. This overview is synthetic as well as exhaustive. I suggest to shorten the summary of subsection 3.3 (lines 256-269) which is basically a repetition of the findings reported in the subsection.
Section 4 announces future research directions for research and practice. However, these goals are only marginally addressed in the two subsections, which rather provide generic hints about potential areas of investigation, only partially discussed from the empirical point of view.
Specifically, Subsection 4.2 focuses on the potential of arts and humanities in promoting personal growth through awareness of inequalities. There is however little conceptual support to this statement, despite a vast psychological literature emphasizing the positive psychophysical health outcomes of reading and writing, as well as attending art exhibitions or practicing creative activities (including the spreading attention to social prescribing). Moreover, most of the books quoted as examples of useful readings in the domain of social inequalities refer to a very different historical period; there are many contemporary writers who contributed to the same topics - e.g. Nadine Gordimer; Toni Morrison; Mario Vargas Llosa; Herta Mueller; Abdulrazak Gurnah (just to quote a few Nobel laureates, but many relevant others are around, who did not reach this achievement); without dismissing great authors of the past, contemporary ones depict the same inequality issues within a context much closer to today’s reader sensitivity and experience.
In Subsection 4.3 the six exemplary persons are surely eminent symbols of excellence and virtue (not only of personal growth); however, these exemplary descriptions are somehow disconnected from the core topic of the paper. Closing the paper with these exemplary (and far from daily life) descriptions seems leaves the reader with the impression of an unaccomplished task. What about personal growth as a dimension of psychological well-being witnessed by ordinary people, such as the daily heroes populating newspapers and being awarded by local governments?
I suggest to avoid extreme self-celebrative tones, such as “Ryff (1989) had enormous impact” (line 168).
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe use of English language is overall appropriate, but there are several typos and syntactic issues disseminated in the abstract and throughout the paper. They require thorough re-reading and amendments.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript addresses an important and theoretically relevant topic. However, several aspects require clarification and improvement before the article can be considered for publication. My main comments are organized by section.
Introduction
Comment 1.The aim of the manuscript should be stated more explicitly. In lines 22–35, the article explains what it intends to cover, but the specific research gap and the added value of this review are not sufficiently clear.
Comment 2.The manuscript should clarify whether it is a narrative review, theoretical review, perspective article, or another type of contribution. This is important because the structure and methodological expectations differ depending on the article type.
Comment 3.The Introduction relies strongly on the Ryff model. Although this is justified, the authors should better situate personal growth within broader contemporary frameworks of well-being, flourishing, meaning in life, self-determination, resilience, and post-traumatic growth.
Comment 4.The conceptual distinction between personal growth, eudaimonia, self-realization, purpose in life, and flourishing should be clarified early in the manuscript. These terms are sometimes used very closely, but they are not fully equivalent.
Materials and Methods / Review Approach
Comment 5.The manuscript does not include a clear methodological section. Since the article reviews decades of research, the authors should describe how the literature was selected, even if this is not a systematic review.
Comment 6.The selection of studies appears selective, but the criteria for inclusion are not explained. The authors should clarify why certain studies were chosen and whether other relevant studies were excluded.
Comment 7.There is a strong reliance on MIDUS-based studies, especially in the empirical sections. For example, lines 184–197 discuss 20-year trajectories from MIDUS, and lines 227–235 also rely on MIDUS data. This is valuable, but the authors should acknowledge the limits of generalizability.
Comment 8.The measurement section is useful, especially the description of high and low scorers for personal growth in lines 148–167. However, the authors should add more information on reliability, validity, scale versions, cross-cultural adaptation, and measurement limitations.
Comment 9.The authors should include a summary table of the main studies reviewed, including author/year, sample, design, measure of personal growth, main findings, and limitations.
Results / Scientific Findings
Comment 10.The empirical findings are interesting, but the synthesis is not sufficiently systematic. The manuscript should distinguish more clearly between cross-sectional, longitudinal, and intervention studies.
Comment 11.Some statements could be interpreted as causal, although much of the evidence appears correlational. The authors should revise the wording and avoid causal interpretations unless supported by longitudinal or experimental evidence.
Comment 12.The section on demographic correlates is relevant, particularly the decline in personal growth with age and lower educational status in lines 184–197. However, alternative explanations such as cohort effects, attrition, and socioeconomic differences should be discussed more critically.
Comment 13.The biomarker and health section should present the evidence in a more balanced way. For example, lines 209–217 report that personal growth did not significantly moderate the association between education and IL-6, whereas lines 219–226 report significant associations with metabolic syndrome. These mixed findings require deeper discussion.
Comment 14.The mechanisms linking personal growth with health outcomes remain unclear. The authors should discuss possible mediators such as stress regulation, health behaviors, social engagement, cognitive activity, and socioeconomic resources.
Comment 15.The cognitive findings in lines 243–256 are promising, but the theoretical explanation is underdeveloped. The authors should explain why personal growth may be associated with episodic memory and cognitive functioning.
Comment 16.The intervention section is too brief. Lines 283–291 mention well-being therapy and community-based interventions, but more detail is needed regarding sample characteristics, intervention duration, effect sizes, follow-up, and whether personal growth was a primary outcome.
Discussion
Comment 17.The future directions section is original, but the transition from empirical findings to inequality, arts and humanities, and heroic exemplars should be better justified. The connection with personal growth is sometimes implicit rather than explicit.
Comment 18.The discussion of inequality in lines 313–356 is important, but it should be more directly connected to empirical evidence on personal growth. The argument is persuasive but needs stronger scientific support.
Comment 19.The section on arts and humanities is engaging, but it reads more like an essay than a scientific review. The authors should include empirical evidence on arts-based interventions, humanities education, bibliotherapy, creativity, or narrative identity.
Comment 20.The section on virtue, ethics, and heroic exemplars is interesting but too long in relation to the main objective of the manuscript. The authors should shorten this section or explain more clearly how these examples advance the scientific understanding of personal growth.
Comment 21.The discussion would benefit from a specific limitations subsection. Important limitations include reliance on self-report measures, Western theoretical traditions, selective evidence, limited causal inference, and possible cultural differences in the meaning of personal growth.
Comment 22.The manuscript should address cultural variability more clearly. Since the Ryff scales have been translated into many languages, the authors should discuss whether personal growth has the same meaning and measurement properties across cultures.
Conclusions
Comment 23.The manuscript needs a clearer final conclusion. At present, the article ends after the discussion of heroic exemplars, but it does not provide a concise synthesis of the main findings and implications.
Comment 24.The conclusion should summarize the current state of evidence, the main limitations of the field, and the most urgent directions for future research.
Comment 25.The authors should provide clearer practical implications for researchers, clinicians, educators, and policymakers.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English language is generally understandable, but the manuscript requires careful revision by a native speaker or professional editing service. Several grammatical errors, awkward expressions, typographical mistakes, and inconsistencies affect the clarity and fluency of the text. For example, expressions such as “various scholar” (line 25), “the need elevate” (line 34), “distant writing” (line 40), “interluekin-6” (line 212), “used a a guide” (line 283), and “protect factor” (line 260) should be corrected. I recommend a thorough language revision to improve precision, readability, and academic tone throughout the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
