Theoretical Examination of Operationalisations of Meaning-In-Life in Seven Scales: Some Implications for Meaning-In-Life Research

Abstract

The questions of “what gives life meaning” or “what is the meaning in life” have received increased theoretical and empirical interest in psychology. This has manifested itself in the various scales that have been constructed to measure the meaning-in-life (MIL) construct. It has long been considered problematic to define and measure. The present study had two aims. Firstly, to review seven well-established scales often used to assess MIL, regarding how it is defined and operationalized. Secondly, to discuss some implications for the definition and measurement of the MIL-construct. Based on the review, it was suggested that MIL is a multidimensional construct comprising content-, dynamic-, temporal-, and spatial-dimensions. A synthesized and expanded but tentative definition of MIL was proposed. The sense of meaning-in-life is defined as a stable yet dynamic perspective, which integrates the past, present, and future of fundamental life-domains, regarding a motivational, cognitive, evaluative/affective and behavioural content, represented primarily in terms of purpose, comprehension, mattering, and manageability. A task for future research is to investigate the merits of the suggested definition for conceptualization and measurement of MIL.

Keywords

meaning-in-life construct scales multidimensionality sub-constructs dynamic temporal spatial

The question of what is the meaning of life has been discussed for centuries in philosophy (e.g., Leach & Tartaglia, 2018). In psychology, this question has long been considered too vague for theoretical and empirical investigations (Debats, 1999). However, the question has successively received increased theoretical and empirical attention (e.g., Baumeister & Vohs, 2005; Brandstätter et al., 2012; Martela & Steger, 2016; Park, 2010; Schnell, 2014). There are several reasons for this. Firstly, the rephrasing of the philosophical question, “what is the meaning of life” to the more empirically investigable question, “what gives life meaning” or “what is the meaning in life” (e.g., Debats et al., 1995). Secondly, a shift within health psychology from the pathogenic to the salutogenic perspective, which focuses on factors that contribute to health (e.g., Becker et al., 2010). Thirdly, the growing interest in positive psychology, which focuses on factors that allow individuals to flourish (e.g., Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Fourthly, the desire to measure meaning-in-life (MIL), which has manifested itself in the construction of various scales to measure the MIL-construct, which in turn has facilitated empirical studies (see Brandstätter et al., 2012).

Brandstätter et al. (2012) performed a systematic review of MIL assessment instruments. The purpose of this review was to investigate: (a) how many instruments exist to assess MIL; (b) the dimensionality of those instruments; (c) the quality of those instruments (with focus on: clarity of the used definition of MIL, sample size, description of the test construction, rating objectivity, internal-consistency and test-retest reliability, norm-values, and criteria and construct validity), and; (d) which aspects of MIL were assessed. The review indicated: (a) a total of 59 instruments to assess MIL, of which 48 applied a nomothetic approach and 11 used an idiographic approach; (b) of the 48 instruments applying a nomothetic approach, 25 were unidimensional and 23 were multidimensional; (c) amongst the 25 unidimensional nomothetic instruments, 7 were assessed to be of low quality, 8 of medium quality, and 10 of high quality, while amongst the 23 multidimensional nomothetic instruments, 3 were assessed to be of low quality, 12 of medium quality, and 8 of high quality; (d) the most frequently measured aspects of MIL were presence of meaning (in 33 scales), source of meaning (in 14 scales), crisis of meaning (9 scales), and search of meaning (in 6 scales). The definition of MIL used in each study was not presented, just a summary description that showed that it can be conceptualized as a highly individual perception, understanding or belief of one´s own life and activities and the value and importance ascribed to them. Based on the review, it was concluded that MIL is a complex construct that has been conceptualized and operationalized in many ways. Furthermore, it was pointed out that there is a need for more integrative theorizing and research on MIL.

In the present study, the main aim was to make a detailed theoretical examination of how MIL is operationalized and not to carry out a general review of the many psychometric properties of scales used to measure it. Thus, this paper focuses on seven specific and well-established scales and not on all existing scales for measuring MIL. Furthermore, these scales are examined theoretically to find important aspects that cannot be revealed statistically (e.g., by factor analysis). The seven scales to be reviewed are: the Purpose in Life Test (PIL, Crumbaugh, 1968; Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1964); the Seeking of Noetic Goals Test (SONG, Crumbaugh, 1977); the Life Regard Index (LRI, Battista & Almond, 1973); the Orientation to Life Questionnaire (OTLQ, Antonovsky, 1987, 1993); the Sources of Meaning and Meaning in Life Questionnaire (SoMe, Schnell, 2009); the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ, Steger et al., 2006), and; the Multidimensional Existential Meaning Scale (MEMS, George & Park, 2017). The first four scales are early developments but can be considered classic in the field of MIL. The later three scales are more recent developments, based on the latest knowledge. All seven scales are well established and often used, as well as translated into various languages and evaluated in several studies. A search in the database APAPsychINFO, using the full-names of the seven scales as search-words, resulted in the following number of hits (June 2022): 565 for PIL, 22 for SONG, 112 for LRI, 352 for OTLQ (alternatively SOC-scale), 18 for SoMe, 842 for MLQ, and 12 for MEMS.

The definition of MIL has been discussed for some time in both philosophy and psychology without reaching consensus or clarity (e.g., Heintzelman & King, 2014b; Hicks & King, 2009; King et al., 2016; Leontiev, 2013). However, more recently there seems to be some increased consensus that MIL can be defined as - at least – a three partite construct, consisting of coherence or comprehension, purpose, and significance or mattering (cf., George & Park, 2016; Martela & Steger, 2016). In the present study, seven of the most established scales used to measure MIL were examined, focusing in detail on how MIL is operationalized. This study aims to identify the common dimensions of MIL and potentially detect and discuss dimensions that are missing but should be part of the construct. The findings can have implications for both future refinements of the definition of MIL and for future developments of MIL-scales. Thus, the aim of the present study was to: (a) review the above-mentioned seven scales, with regard to how MIL was defined and operationalized; (b) discuss implications for the definition of MIL and for future developments of MIL-scales.

Operationalisations of Meaning-In-Life in Seven Scales

The seven scales will be briefly reviewed sequentially. The focus is on the definition of MIL and its dimensionality.

The Purpose in Life Test (PIL) is one of the earliest scales to measure MIL, developed by Crumbaugh and Maholick (1964) and revised to its most used form by Crumbaugh (1968). Crumbaugh and Maholick did not give an explicit definition of MIL but the development of PIL was grounded partly in logotherapy (cf., Frankl, 1946/2008), where the will-to-meaning – a need to find meaning and purpose in life – is considered a primary human motivation, and partly by a wish to discriminate a psychiatric group from a non-psychiatric group. The selection of items for PIL was guided by a review of literature on existentialism - especially logotherapy - and a guess regarding what type of items would discriminate a clinical group from a non-clinical group. PIL was constructed to measure, on one single continuum, the degree to which meaning and purpose in life have been found. The scale consists of 20 items to be responded to on a 7-point rating scale. It was validated on different samples (e.g., non-psychiatric groups, psychiatric groups). The split-half reliability with Spearman-Brown correction was 0.92 (Crumbaugh, 1968). The dimensionality of the scale was not assessed by factor analysis when the scale was introduced (see Crumbaugh, 1968; Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1964) but subsequent studies have given mixed results concerning PIL´s dimensionality, providing evidence for various numbers of dimensions (e.g., Chamberlain & Zika, 1988; Garcia-Alandete et al., 2018; Reker & Cousins, 1979; Schulenberg & Melton, 2010). The test-retest reliability was not reported in the original study but was found to be .79 over a period of six weeks in a study by Reker and Cousins (1979).

The Seeking of Noetic Goals Test (SONG) was developed by Crumbaugh (1977) as a complement to PIL and is frequently used in combination with it. As with PIL, the development of SONG is grounded in logotherapy and by a wish to discriminate a patient group from a non-patient group. Items were related to motivation for purpose and meaning and were collected from various types of sources. While PIL was designed to assess the degree to which meaning and purpose in life have been found, SONG was designed to assess, on a single continuum, the strength of the motivation to find meaning and purpose in life. The scale consists of 20 items to be responded to on a 7-point rating scale. The scale was validated on different samples (e.g., non-psychiatric groups, psychiatric groups). The split-half reliability with Spearman-Brown correction was 0.83 (Crumbaugh, 1977). The dimensionality was not assessed by factor analysis when the scale was introduced (see Crumbaugh, 1977) but subsequent studies have given mixed results concerning SONG´s dimensionality, providing evidence for various numbers of dimensions (e.g., Garcia-Alandete et al., 2020; Reker & Cousins, 1979; Schulenberg et al., 2014). PIL and SONG have been found to have a low to moderate negative correlation with each other (e.g., Crumbaugh, 1977; Garcia-Alandete et al., 2018; Reker & Cousins, 1979) and to load on separate factors (e.g., Garcia-Alandete et al., 2018; Reker & Cousins, 1979), providing evidence for the complementary nature of SONG. The test-retest reliability was not reported in the original study but was found to be .78 over a period of six weeks in a study by Reker and Cousins (1979).

The Life Regard Index (LRI) was developed by Battista and Almond (1973) to measure positive life regard. They used the term positive life regard as a synonym for MIL and defined it as “an individual´s belief that he is fulfilling his life as conceptualized in terms of some life-framework or goal” (Battista & Almond, 1973, p. 423). Battista and Almond (1973) derived the two-dimensional construct of positive life regard from a review of literature on personal meaning, where they concluded that a common conception of what it means when a person states that his life is meaningful, implies: “(1) that he is positively committed to some concept of meaning; (2) that this concept of meaning of life provides him with some framework or goal from which to view his life; (3) that he perceives his life as related to or fulfilling this concept of life; (4) that he experiences this fulfilment as a feeling of integration, relatedness, or significance.” (Battista & Almond, 1973, p. 410). Positive life regard is the sum of ratings on a two-dimensional construct: a framework dimension, defined as “the ability of an individual to see his life within some perspective and context, and to have derived a set of life-goals, purpose in life, or life-view from them” (Battista & Almond, 1973, p. 411); a fulfilment dimension, defined as “the degree to which an individual sees himself as having fulfilled or as being in the process of fulfilling his framework or life-goals” (Battista & Almond, 1973, p. 411). The scale consists of 28 items (14 items for the framework dimension and 14 items for the fulfilment dimension) to be responded to on a 5-point rating scale. The scale was validated on university students. The internal consistency was not reported by Battista and Almond (1973) but was reported in other studies (Debats, 1998; Steger, 2007) to be 0.89–0.93 for the full scale. The dimensionality of the LRI was not explored by Battista and Almond (1973) but subsequent studies have given mixed results concerning the factor structure of the LRI (e.g., Chamberlain & Zika, 1988; Steger, 2007). The framework and fulfilment dimension have been found to have a high positive correlation (r = 0.76) with each other (Battista & Almond, 1973). The test-retest reliability - over an unreported period - for the whole LRI was 0.94 but was not reported for the two dimensions. However, subsequent studies found high (above .70) test-retest reliabilities – over a period of five weeks - for both the whole scale and for the two dimensions, as reviewed in Debats (1998).

The Orientation to Life Questionnaire (OTLQ) was originally introduced in a book by Antonovsky (1987), and then for the first time described and psychometrically evaluated in a paper by Antonovsky (1993). This scale does not explicitly measure MIL. It measures sense of coherence (SOC), which is a general coping disposition to stress (Antonovsky, 1987; Steger et al., 2006). However, in the past, it has often been used to measure MIL, probably mainly because: (a) one of its sub-scales measures meaningfulness, and; (b) another sub-scale measures comprehensibility, which intersects with a basic aspect of meaning, usually defined as a mental representation of expected connections between various types of entities (e.g., Baumeister, 1991); (c) the word “sense” is related to the word “meaning” (cf., Leontiev, 2013) and the word “coherence”, once again relates to Baumeister´s (1991) definition of meaning; (d) the word “life” is part of the name of the scale. Taken together, the construct of SOC, even though not explicitly about MIL, is very similar to it. Thus, OTLQ measures SOC, that was coined and defined by Antonovsky (1987, p. 19) as “a global orientation that expresses the extent to which one has a pervasive, enduring though dynamic feeling of confidence that: (1) the stimuli deriving from one´s internal and external environments in the course of living are structured, predictable, and explicable; (2) the resources are available to one to meet the demands posed by these stimuli; and (3) these demands are challenges, worthy of investment and engagement”. The OTLQ was developed using a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods (cf., Antonovsky, 1987). According to Antonovsky (1987), SOC consists of three dimensions. Comprehensibility (the cognitive dimension) representing the extent of the belief that the problem faced is clear. SOC Meaningfulness (the motivational dimension) representing the extent of the belief that one wishes to cope with the problem. However, Antonovsky (1987) clearly stated that SOC should only be assessed in the form of a single sum-total score calculated over all items of OTLQ, and that scores for the three dimensions of SOC should not be computed. The methodological argument is that the use of the facet design in the development of the scale makes it impossible to separate the three dimensions because, besides the SOC-facet (the three SOC-dimensions), there are four additional facets (modality, source, demand, and time) that affect the factorial structure of the scale (see Antonovsky, 1987). The scale consists of 29 items (11 items for comprehensibility, 10 items for manageability, and 8 items for meaningfulness) to be responded to on a 7-point rating scale. The scale was validated on various samples (e.g., professions, university students). The internal consistency (Cronbach´s alpha coefficient) for the entire scale has varied between 0.82 and 0.95 in different samples (Antonovsky, 1993). Factor analytical studies have yielded mixed results concerning the scale’s dimensionality (for reviews, see Antonovsky, 1993; Eriksson & Lindström, 2005; Eriksson & Mittelmark, 2017). Even though the three dimensions should not be assessed separately, studies have shown moderate to high positive correlations between scores on the three dimensions (Antonovsky, 1987; Sandell et al., 1998). The test-retest reliability, over a period of 2 weeks to 10 years, has been in the range of 0.41–0.97 (see Antonovsky, 1993; Eriksson & Lindström, 2005).

The Sources of Meaning and Meaning in Life Questionnaire (SoMe) was developed and originally described in German (Schnell, 2004, 2008; Schnell & Becker, 2007) and thereafter introduced in English (Schnell, 2009). Schnell (2009) defined MIL in general terms as a global evaluation of life. SoMe was developed in a large, grounded theory-based research program, combining qualitative and quantitative methods (cf., Schnell, 2009, 2014). MIL is described in terms of two dimensions. Meaningfulness, mostly unconsciously experienced and defined as “a fundamental sense of meaning, based on an appraisal of one´s life as coherent, significant, directed, and belonging” (Schnell, 2009, p. 487). Crisis of meaning, usually consciously experienced and defined as “judgment on one´s life as frustratingly empty, pointless and lacking of meaning” (Schnell, 2009, p. 487). In addition, and independently of these two MIL-dimensions, 26 sources of meaning categorized into four categories were specified: (1) Self-transcendence, defined as “commitment to objectives beyond one´s immediate needs” (Schnell, 2009, p. 488), divided into the sub-category vertical self-transcendence, defined as “orientation towards an immaterial cosmic power” (Schnell, 2009, p. 488, consisting of the two sources explicit religiosity, and spirituality) and the sub-category horizontal self-transcendence, defined as “taking responsibility for worldly affairs beyond one´s immediate concerns” (Schnell, 2009, p. 488, consisting of the five sources social commitment, unison with nature, self-knowledge, health, and generativity); (2) Self-actualization, defined as “employing, challenging, and fostering one´s capacities” (Schnell, 2009, p. 488, consisting of the eight sources: challenge, individualism, power, development, achievement, freedom, knowledge, and creativity); (3) Order, defined as “holding on to values, practicality, decency, and the tried and tested” (Schnell, 2009, p. 488, consisting of the four sources tradition, practicality, morality, and reason); (4) Well-being and relatedness, defined as “cultivating and enjoying life´s pleasures in privacy and company” (Schnell, 2009, p. 488, consisting of the seven sources community, fun, love, comfort, care, attentiveness, and harmony). The scale constructed to measure MIL consists of 10 items (5 items for meaningfulness and 5 items for crisis of meaning) to be responded to on a 6-point rating scale. The scale was validated on a representative population sample and on university students. The internal consistency (Cronbach´s alpha coefficient) was 0.74 for meaningfulness and 0.92 for crisis of meaning. An exploratory factor analysis gave support for the two MIL-dimensions (meaningfulness and crisis of meaning) and was thereafter further confirmed by a confirmatory factor analysis. The scores on the two MIL-dimensions had a negative correlation (r = − 38) with each other. Furthermore, meaningfulness showed a positive correlation (.34–.62) with the four sources of meaning categories, while crisis of meaning was negatively correlated (−.03 to −.17) with the four sources of meaning (see Schnell, 2009). The test-retest reliability two months apart was .90 for both MIL-dimensions and, on average, .90 for the 26 sources of meaning and, with six months apart .78 for meaningfulness and .48 for crisis of meaning and, on average, .72 for the 26 sources of meaning.

The Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ) developed by Steger et al. (2006) is, as indicated above, the most often used of the seven scales reviewed in this text. Steger et al. (2006, p. 81) defined MIL as “the sense made of, and significance felt regarding, the nature of one´s being and existence”. MLQ was obtained on empirical grounds, by performing consecutive factor analyses of a large number of items (cf., Steger et al., 2006). MIL is proposed to consist of two dimensions: the presence of meaning, capturing “the subjective sense that one´s life is meaningful” (Steger et al., 2006, p. 85); and the search for meaning, capturing “the drive and orientation toward finding meaning in one´s life” (Steger et al., 2006, p. 85). The scale consists of 10 items (5 items for presence of meaning and 5 items for search of meaning) to be responded to on a 7-point rating scale. The scale was validated on several samples of university students. The internal consistency (Cronbach´s alpha coefficient) was 0.81–0.86 for presence of meaning and 0.84–0.92 for search of meaning. An exploratory factor analysis that was followed up by several confirmatory factor analyses gave support for the two dimensions. The two sub-scales were found to have a weak negative correlation with each other (r = −.09, in one sub-study and r = −.24, in another sub-study) (see Steger et al., 2006). The test-retest reliability correlations (one month apart) were 0.70 for the presence-of-meaning sub-scale and 0.73 for the search-of-meaning sub-scale.

The Multidimensional Existential Meaning Scale (MEMS) developed by George and Park (2017) is one of the most recent scales constructed to measure MIL. George and Park (2016, p. 208) defined MIL as “the extent to which one´s life is experienced as making sense, as being directed and motivated by valued goals, and as mattering in this world”. MEMS was developed on theoretical grounds, with the intention to tap into the tripartite construct of MIL (cf., George & Park, 2017). George and Park´s definition of MIL reflects the growing consensus in psychology that it is a multidimensional construct, consisting of, at least, the three sub-constructs: Comprehension, defined as the “degree of coherence and understanding experienced regarding one´s life” (George & Park, 2016, p. 208); Purpose, defined as the “extent of being directed and motivated by valued life goals” (George & Park, 2016, p. 2008); and Mattering, defined as the “extent of experiencing one´s existence as significant, important and of value in the world” (George & Park, 2016, p. 208). The scale consists of 15 items (5 items for comprehension, 5 items for purpose, and 5 items for mattering) to be responded to on a 7-point rating scale. The scale was validated on several samples of university students. The internal consistency (Cronbach´s alpha coefficient) was 0.90 for comprehension, 0.88–0.89 for purpose, and 0.84–0.90 for mattering. The factor analysis confirmed the hypothesized three-dimensional structure. The three latent factors showed high positive intercorrelations, all approximately 0.70. The test-retest reliability correlations (two weeks apart) were 0.75 for comprehension, 0.75 for purpose, and 0.85 for mattering.

A summary of characteristics of the seven scales is presented in Table 1. In sum, the scales measure different but overlapping sub-constructs. All seven scales consist of multiple items to be responded to on rating scales that vary between five and seven response options. They have been validated on various samples, and they all have Cronbach alphas or split-half reliabilities above 0.70, which is considered satisfactory (e.g. Kline, 2000). Some scales are constructed as unidimensional, while other as multidimensional. For some scales the hypothesized factorial structure is confirmed, while for others mixed results have been obtained. Finally, for all scales the temporal stability can be considered high (≥0.70).

Table 1.

Summary of central characteristics of the seven scales

Scale	Measures	Number of items	Response format	Sample(s) used in validation
The purpose in life test (PIL)	The degree to which meaning and purpose in life have been found	20	7-point scale	- Non-psychiatric
The purpose in life test (PIL)		20	7-point scale	- Psychiatric
The seeking of noetic goals test (SONG)	The strength of the motivation to find meaning and purpose in life	20	7-point scale	- Patients
The seeking of noetic goals test (SONG)		20	7-point scale	- Non-patients
The life regard index (LRI)	Positive life regard, in terms of framework and fulfilment	28	5-point scale	University student
The orientation to life questionnaire (OTLQ)	Sense of coherence, in term of meaningfulness comprehensibility, and manageability	29	7-point scale	- Various professions
The orientation to life questionnaire (OTLQ)		29	7-point scale	- University student
The sources of meaning and meaning in life questionnaire (SoMe)	- Meaningfulness	- Meaningfulness: 5	6-point scale	- Representative population sample
	- Crisis of meaning	- Crisis of meaning: 5	6-point scale	- University students
The meaning in life questionnaire (MLQ)	- Presence of meaning	- Presence of meaning: 5	7-point scale	- University students
The meaning in life questionnaire (MLQ)	- Search for meaning	- Search of meaning: 5	7-point scale	- University students
The multidimensional existential meaning scale (MEMS)	- Presence of meaning	- Purpose: 5	7-point scale	- University students
	- Search for meaning	- Comprehension: 5
	- Search for meaning	- Mattering: 5

Scale	Assumed dimensionality (and number of indexes)	Internal consistency (Cronbach´s alpha)	Construct validity (by factor analysis)	Temporal stability (by test-retest reliability)
The purpose in life test (PIL)	One	0.92^a	Mixed results^b	0.79 (over six weeks)
The seeking of noetic goals test (SONG)	One	0.83^a	Mixed results^b	0.78 (over six weeks)
The life regard index (LRI)	One	0.89–0.93	Mixed results^b	>0.70 (over five weeks)
The orientation to life questionnaire (OTLQ)	One	0.82–0.95	Mixed results^b	0.41–0.97 (over two weeks – ten years)
The sources of meaning and meaning in life questionnaire (SoMe)	Two	- Meaningfulness: 0.74	The two-factor structure was confirmed	0.90 for both dimensions (over two months)
	Two	- Crisis of meaning: 0.92	The two-factor structure was confirmed	0.90 for both dimensions (over two months)
The meaning in life questionnaire (MLQ)	Two	- Presence of meaning: 0.81–0.86	The two-factor structure was confirmed	≥0.70 for both dimensions (over one month)
The meaning in life questionnaire (MLQ)	Two	- Search of meaning: 0.84–0.92	The two-factor structure was confirmed	≥0.70 for both dimensions (over one month)
The multidimensional existential meaning scale (MEMS)	Three	- Comprehension: 0.90	The three-factor structure was confirmed	≥0.75 for all three dimensions (over two weeks)
		- Purpose: 0.88–0.89
		- Mattering: 0.84–0.90

^aSplit-half reliability with Spearman-Brown correction.

^bIn some studies the one-factor structure has been confirmed, while in other studies a multi-factor solution (with a varied number of factors) has been obtained that does not confirm the one-factor structure.

When using these seven scales for the further analysis and synthesis, the following three limitations should be kept in mind. Firstly, the seven scales, which are the ones most often used and established in MIL-research, were selected to be included in the present study, to extract the central meaning of the MIL-construct. Thus, some less used and established scales, that may measure different aspects of MIL, were excluded, which may have an impact on the conclusion to be reached about the central aspects of the MIL-construct. Secondly, many of the seven scales have been developed and validated on samples of university students. It is in general rather common to use university students in psychological research but may here affect the properties of the scales. Thirdly, all seven scales have been constructed from a Western-centric perspective and originally developed and validated in western countries. Even though most of the scales have been translated into different languages and used in various countries around the world, scales that are developed from a Western-centric perspective cannot be assumed to be culturally universally valid, unless evidence for cultural validity is provided (e.g. Fowers et al., 2023).

Some Implications for Meaning-in-Life Research

The findings from the review of the seven scales will be synthesized and discussed below. Furthermore, some implications will be suggested for the definition and measurement of MIL.

MIL is a Multidimensional Construct

Some of the seven scales operationalized MIL as consisting of two to three sub-constructs (LRI, OTLQ, SoMe, MLQ, and MEMS), while others operationalized it as consisting of one single sub-construct (PIL and SONG). However, empirical assessments by factor analysis provided evidence that PIL and SONG are also more likely to be multidimensional. This strongly suggests that MIL is a multidimensional construct that should be assessed by multidimensional scales. This conclusion is in line with much previous research claiming that MIL should be defined and measured as a multidimensional construct (e.g., Brandstätter et al., 2012; Leontiev, 2013). It is time to go beyond defining MIL as an omnibus construct, lumping various dimensions together (George & Park, 2016; Martela & Steger, 2016). Instead, efforts should be made to specify the various sub-constructs of MIL and measure them separately.

Defining MIL as a multidimensional construct makes it possible to investigate, both theoretically and empirically, the following relations: (a) How the different aspects of MIL are related to each other (e.g., George & Park, 2016; Martela & Steger, 2016); (b) If the different aspects of MIL are affected differently by various variables (e.g., Schnell & Becker, 2006; Steger et al., 2008); (c) If the different aspects of MIL have different effects on various variables (e.g., Schnell, 2009; Steger et al., 2006); (d) Finally, how the different aspects of MIL, in combination or interaction with each other, are related to other variables (e.g., Crumbaugh, 1977; Schnell, 2010; Schulenberg et al., 2014; Steger et al., 2006).

The main point is that MIL should be defined and measured as a multidimensional construct.

MIL has a Content Dimension

Based on the inspection of the seven scales and the sub-constructs that they measure, the scales can be divided roughly into two overlapping categories. The first category of scales can be preliminarily characterised as “multi-construct” scales. The latter define the MIL-construct by separate sub-constructs and/or measure the different sub-constructs of the MIL-construct by separate sub-scales. The scales that can be classified into this category are OTLQ, MEMS and SoMe.

OTLQ defines but does not measure comprehensibility, meaningfulness, and manageability separately. MEMS both defines and measures comprehension, mattering, and purpose separately. SoMe both defines and measures meaningfulness and crisis-of-meaning separately. The PIL, SONG, LRI and MLQ scales, or their sub-scales, measure a mixture of constructs, mostly meaning, purpose, and significance but also others, for example, feelings, traits, and potentials.

In sum, this first category of scales has defined MIL by separate sub-constructs and/or measured these different sub-constructs by separate sub-scales. However, they do not distinctively define or assess the dynamic dimension of MIL (to be discussed in the next section). More generally, this suggests that the MIL-construct is composed of several sub-constructs and that these should be assessed with separate sub-scales. Also, the MIL-construct is composed of other sub-constructs that should be defined and assessed separately (to be discussed in the following sections).

As suggested above, the three scales that were classified into the first category of multi-construct scales were SoMe, MEMS, and OTLQ. The part of SoMe that defines and measures MIL (not the sources of meaning) was guided by a logical analysis of meaning and meaningfulness. Schnell (2009) pointed out – based on the work of Blanché (1957) and Yorke (2001) – that an analysis of contraries and contradictions shows that it is problematic to use grammatical antonyms and bi-polar scales to measure MIL. As a consequence of this analysis, two unipolar sub-scales were constructed to measure the two sub-constructs of MIL and distinguished: the (positive) experience of meaningfulness and the (negative) experience of a crisis-of-meaning (cf., Schnell, 2009).

MEMS was designed to measure the tripartite view of MIL that lately has attracted a growing consensus concerning how it should be defined (e.g., George & Park, 2016; Martela & Steger, 2016). The comprehension sub-construct of MEMS is described as a cognitive component and defined as the “degree of coherence and understanding experienced regarding one´s life” (George & Park, 2016, p. 208). It overlaps highly with the comprehensibility sub-construct of OTLQ, also described as a cognitive component and defined as part of a global perspective that “the stimuli deriving from one´s internal and external environments in the course of living are structured, predictable, and explicable” (Antonovsky, 1987, p. 19). The mattering sub-construct of MEMS is described as an evaluative component and defined as the “extent of experiencing one´s existence as significant, important and of value in the world” (George & Park, 2016, p. 208). It overlaps with the meaningfulness sub-construct described as a motivational component and defined as part of the global perspective that the demands of life are seen as challenges “worthy of investment and engagement” (Antonovsky, 1987, p. 19). Finally, the purpose sub-construct of MEMS described as a motivational component and defined as the “extent of being directed and motivated by valued life goals” (George & Park, 2016, p. 2008) is not a separately defined sub-construct of OTLQ but questions about purpose are included in the measurement of the three other sub-constructs. Instead, manageability is the third and final sub-construct of OTLQ, defined as a behavioural component and as part of a global orientation, that when confronted with the demands of life, “the resources are available to one to meet the demands” (Antonovsky, 1987, p. 19).

Thus, the tripartite view of MIL does not encompass the behavioural manageability sub-construct, as defined by OTLQ. To have a sense of purpose, comprehension and mattering may not cover the meaning of MIL completely. Having the resources and skills to handle various conditions of life to reach various goals might also be of importance in order to experience MIL. This is in line with one of Baumeister´s four needs of meaning, namely the need for efficacy (cf., Baumeister, 1991; Baumeister & Vohs, 2005). Baumeister and Vohs (2005, p. 611) clarify the importance of this aspect as follows: “The person might know what was desirable but could not do anything with that knowledge”.

It should also be briefly noted that manageability (the behavioural aspect of SOC) is related to some well-established constructs as, for example, agency and self-efficacy. Manageability was defined as the extent of the belief that one will be able to cope successfully with problems at hand (Antonovsky, 1987). Self-efficacy is defined as the belief in one’s ability to succeed at (specific) tasks (e.g., Bandura, 1982, 1997). Agency is defined as the actual capacity to act intentionally to produce desired outcomes (e.g., Bandura, 2018; Cavazzoni et al., 2022; Martin et al., 2003). Thus, the behavioural aspect has been recognized to be of importance in various areas of life, (e.g., in connection to problems, tasks, and outcomes in general).

Now it is suggested that manageability should be added as one of the fundamental sub-constructs of MIL. It is a task for future research to investigate if manageability – as suggested here – should be added as a fundamental sub-construct of MIL, as well as sub-constructs that have been suggested by other scholars, such as for example, belonging (Schnell, 2009), affect (Martela & Steger, 2016) and the feeling-of-meaning (Heintzelman & King, 2014a).

The main point is that a definition and measure of MIL - in addition to purpose, comprehension, and mattering - should also include manageability.

MIL has a Dynamic Dimension

Based on the inspection of the seven scales and the dimensions that they measure, a second category of scales can also be noted. This category can be preliminarily characterized as “dynamic” scales. These scales generally measure two aspects with separate scales or sub-scales; one aspect that is concerned with the presence of MIL as experienced at present and another concerned with the search of MIL as experienced at present but to be gained in the future. In other words, these scales define and measure, by separate sub-scales, the presence of MIL as experienced at present vs the search for MIL as experienced at present but to be obtained in the future or MIL as it is or should be vs to what degree this conception about MIL is fulfilled or in the process of becoming fulfilled.

The scales that can be classified into this category are PIL, SONG, MLQ, and LRI, where: the presence of MIL is assessed by PIL, MLQ-Presence; the search for MIL is assessed by SONG, MLQ-Search; and MIL as it is or should be, is assessed by LRI-Framework, and; to what degree this conception about MIL is fulfilled or in the process of becoming fulfilled, is assessed by LRI-Fulfillment. OTLQ, MEMS, and SoMe, only assess the presence of experiencing MIL at present, as defined and measured by the different sub-scales, even though the items of OTLQ are formulated in a mix of past, present and future. With regard to this rudimentary classification, it should be noted that PIL and SONG are classified into this category because SONG was developed as a complement to PIL and because both scales are often used in combination with each other and thus capture this dynamic aspect of MIL. In sum, this suggests that this second category of scales has been defined by and measures the dynamic aspect of MIL but does not distinctively assess its different sub-constructs.

As previously reviewed, the relation between the experienced presence of MIL and the search for MIL was found to be negative. Both PIL and SONG (e.g., Crumbaugh, 1977; Garcia-Alandete et al., 2018; Reker & Cousins, 1979) and MLQ-Presence and MLQ-Search (Steger et al., 2006) have a low to moderate negative correlation with each other. Steger et al. (2008) investigated if the decrease in the presence of MIL leads to an increase in searching for MIL (the presence-to-search model) or if an increase in the search for MIL leads to an increase in the presence of MIL (the search-to-presence model). With the reservation that they investigated this question with a correlational study, they concluded that the presence-to-search model received greater support. A conclusion that is in line with the propositions of the meaning maintenance model (cf., Heine et al., 2006; Proulx & Inzlicht, 2012).

The main point is that a definition and measure of MIL should also capture its dynamic aspect.

MIL has a Temporal Dimension

The dynamic dimensions imply, and the inspection of the seven scales suggest, a temporal dimension of MIL. Even though all seven scales are constructed to assess some sub-construct or aspect of MIL at present, the following should be noted. Firstly, PIL and MLQ-Presence are designed to assess the presence of MIL, or more precisely, the experienced presence of MIL that is there at present. On the other hand, SONG and MLQ-Search are designed to assess the search for MIL, or more precisely, a search of MIL that is not experienced there at present but is aimed to be found in the future. Secondly, LRI-Framework assesses MIL as it is or should be and MIL-Fulfillment assesses to what degree the conception of MIL is fulfilled or in the process of becoming fulfilled. Thus, both LRI-Framework and LRI-Fulfillment refer to a mix of present and future. Thirdly, OTLQ assesses the degree of experienced sense of coherence at present, but Antonovsky (1987, 1993) considered time to be an important dimension and used it (past, present, and future) as one of the facets in the construction of OTLQ. However, even though approximately one third of the items explicitly refer to each of the three periods, the facet-design is not compatible with a computation of scores for the three periods (cf., Antonovsky, 1987, 1993).

The dynamic dimension is intertwined with the temporal dimension. The search for MIL implies that – at present - there is a part of MIL that is not yet there, waiting to be achieved or discovered in the future. This search of meaning aims to result – in the future - in a new and hopefully greater sense of MIL. However, and this is of utmost importance, the search for MIL can be done by reviewing the past, or to aim at and reach some goal in the future, or even by restructuring things at present. This applies also to the presence of MIL, which means that – at present – there is a certain sense of meaning. However, the presence of MIL at present can be a function of the experienced past MIL and the expectations or desires of a future MIL. None of the seven scales were explicitly designed to assess, by three separate-subscales, the experienced past, the experienced present, and the expected future MIL. Such a scale would make it possible to assess, by cross-sectional studies, how the conceptions of the past, present, and future MIL affect each other. (For a theoretical ground for such a scale and some guidance on how such scale could be constructed, see the phenomenological model described by Battista and Almond (1973)).

The suggestion that time is a fundamental dimension of MIL is in line with one of the fundamental themes in existentialism that is concerned with the time perspective (e.g., Flynn, 2006, p. 306). For example, Kierkegaard - one of the most prominent existential philosophers - wrote, “It is really true what philosophy tells us, that life must be understood backwards. But with this, one forgets the second proposition, that it must be lived forwards.” (1843, p. 306), often shortened to, “Life can only be understood backwards but it must be lived forwards”.

Also, in psychology, the temporal (and dynamic) dimension of MIL has not gone unnoticed. A main postulate in Frankl´s (1946/2008) logotherapy is that having a life-purpose to strive for in the future is what gives life meaning. Thus, to have a desirable life-purpose worth striving for is assumed to give meaning to life at present. Research on nostalgia shows than nostalgic memories strongly contribute to an increased sense of MIL (e.g., Routledge et al., 2012, 2013). Thus, remembering and thinking about the past can bring meaning to life at present.

Furthermore, Debats (1999, pp. 52-53) claimed that there is a “… need for more research to investigate the effects of temporal (past, present, future) factors in meaning in life processes”. Baumeister et al. (2013) claimed that MIL involves an integration of past, present, and future events and experiences. Baumeister et al. (2013) also obtained some empirical evidence that indicates that the more people thought about their past and future the more meaningful were their lives (Baumeister et al., 2013).

Zimbardo and Boyd (1999, 2008) have refined the conceptualization of the time perspective. They described this perspective as a process in which five temporal categories play a significant role in giving order and meaning to life. The original five time categories were: past-negative, a pessimistic and aversive view of the past; past-positive, a warm and sentimental view of the past; present-hedonistic, a pleasures and risk-taking attitude, with little regard for future consequences; present-fatalistic, a helpless and hopeless attitude, and; future, characterized by reward dependency and the striving for long-term goals. The relations between the five different time perspectives and MIL (in terms of the presence of MIL and the searched for MIL) have been investigated in some correlational studies, giving heterogeneous results (see e.g., Shterjovska & Achkovska-Leshkovska, 2014; Steger et al., 2008; Wiesmann et al., 2018; Zheng & Wang, 2022).

As previously reviewed, the temporal stability (test-retest reliability) of the seven scales over a period of two weeks −10 years (mostly, two weeks - two months) was in the range of 0.41–0.97. This suggests that MIL can be tentatively considered more of a trait than a state. However, more longitudinal studies (and experiments) are needed on this topic in order to give a more definite answer (see also, Brandstätter et al., 2012; Debats, 1998; Heintzelman & King, 2014b; Leontiev, 2013).

The main point is that a definition and measure of MIL should include the temporal dimension, represented in terms of the past, present, and future.

MIL has a Spatial Dimension

While scholars of MIL have devoted an excessive amount of attention to “meaning” (and even some to “in”), astonishingly little attention has been given to “life”. “Yet the word ‘life’ is every bit as problematic as the word ‘meaning´” (Eagleton, 2007, p. 78). One perspective is to conceptualize human life having, at least, a temporal dimension and a spatial dimension. Thus, as previously suggested, MIL has a temporal dimension, which means that both the recollected past, the existing present, and the potential future affect it. It is now additionally suggested that MIL also has a spatial dimension, which means that there are a number of fundamental life spheres or life domains that most people have to relate to and that are intertwined with MIL.

Amongst the researchers and constructors of the seven scales reviewed in this study, Antonovsky (1987) is the one that most explicitly treated the spatial dimensions of life. Antonovsky (1987) proposed the following four life domains that every person has to relate to: the closest interpersonal relations, the main occupation, the main existential themes, and the person´s own inner feelings. However, OTLQ was not designed to assess SOC levels in each of these four domains separately. Battista and Almond (1973) do not discuss in detail or assess the spatial dimension by separate sub-scales in the LRI. However, they both discuss and include domains in relation to another scale – the Life Orientation Index – that they only briefly described (cf., Battista & Almond, 1973). Finally, the separate part of Schnell´s SoMe (2009), which is designed to assess the importance of the 26 sources of MIL, is not about domains per se but relates on a higher level of abstractedness (motivational level) to various life domains. The sources of meaning are described as basic orientations, that “motivate commitment to, and directions of, actions in different areas of life” (Schnell, 2009, p. 486) and are postulated to influence MIL.

What Are the Life Domains That Are Central to MIL?

There is not much consensus about what, or how many, these domains are (their label). Delle Fave et al. (2013) investigated ten major life domains (work, family, standard of living, interpersonal relationships, health, personal growth, leisure, spirituality/religion, society and community, and life in general). Debats (1999) found eight domains (relationships, lifework, personal well-being, self-actualization, service, beliefs, materiality, and future/hope). Emmons (2003) identified four domains (relationships/intimacy, achievement/work, religion/spirituality, and self-transcendence/generativity). Antonovsky (1987) postulated, as noted above, four domains (the closest interpersonal relations, the main occupation, the main existential themes, the person´s own inner feelings). Schnell (2009), as previously reviewed, suggested four categories of sources of meaning (self-transcendence, self-actualization, order, and well-being/relatedness).

With regard to the above classifications, the following should be noted. Firstly, the various domains are specified at different levels of abstraction, from rather concrete, well-delimited areas of life (e.g., work, family) to abstract, boundless motives and values (e.g., self-transcendence, self-actualization). Secondly, as clearly pointed out by several scholars, extracting MIL from, for example work, can be guided by various underlying motives or values, for example, self-actualization or relatedness (e.g., Delle Fave et al., 2013; Schnell, 2009). Thus, it seems important to differentiate between these levels of abstraction. In this paper, the concrete and well-delimited connotation is used when referring to domains.

The cursory review of the various taxonomies of domains shows that in a majority of classifications of life domains that are central to human life, family/relationships and work/main occupation appears to be two of the central life domains. This is in line with what Freud once is supposed to have said when asked what people need to live a satisfying life: “Liebe und Arbeit”, meaning “Love and Work” (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1991). It also suggests that a taxonomy of central life domains that has a great consensus among researchers - in a similar way as the Big Five taxonomy of personality has obtained (e.g., McCrae & John, 1992) - is an area for future research. Until such taxonomy is established, it is suggested that the central life domains are relationships/family and main occupation/work. These two domains can optionally be supplemented with some additional life domains from the taxonomies proposed by Debats (1999), Delle Fave et al. (2013), and Emmons (2003).

Why Should MIL Be Assessed in Central Life Domains?

MIL is about how the person interprets his/her life (e.g., Martela & Steger, 2016). If life is conceptualized to be composed of a number of fundamental domains, to which we all must relate, the question arises – besides what these domains are and how many there are – how salient, relevant, important or significant each of these are to a given person´s MIL? Several researchers have suggested that investing in multiple domains of various kinds and having a balanced life regarding life domains are most beneficial for one´s MIL (e.g., Baumeister & Vohs, 2005; Sirgy & Wu, 2009). There are at least two reasons for this. Firstly, when one has problems in one of the domains (e.g., are sacked from work) one still can obtain MIL from some of the others (e.g., family). Secondly, the different domains may satisfy or be motivated, in various amounts, by different needs (e.g., work may satisfy or be motivated by the need for achievement and family may satisfy or be motivated by the need of care and relatedness).

Martela and Steger (2016) and George and Park (2016) pointed out that there is a weakness in definitions and measurements of MIL that treats it as an omnibus construct and does not assess its distinct sub-constructs. This same line of reasoning should apply to other aspects of MIL. Regardless of whether the aggregation is made over sub-constructs or some other aspect of MIL, for example, life domains, it results in a less precise definition and measurement of it as well as a loss of information. With regard to the assessment of MIL, it may be informative to know also to what degree it is obtained in the various domains: not how a separate general MIL-measurement correlates with a separate measurement of experiences of various domains (e.g., work, family) but the degree of MIL with reference to the various domains (e.g., MIL with reference to work, MIL with reference to family). Such a domain-specific MIL-assessment can be of importance for counselling, in order to detect in which domains MIL is low and ought to be improved.

Melton and Schulenberg (2008, p. 31-32) suggested that MIL-scales “…may serve as an essential aid to guide the therapist to ask appropriate therapeutic questions to help the client more efficiently”. Emmons (2003, p. 109) pointed out, more specifically that: “…assessment instruments designed to measure life meaning must capture, at minimum, the WIST (work, intimacy, spirituality, and transcendence) categories of meaningful experience. Clinicians might routinely assess a client’s level of satisfaction with WIST, design interventions to assist clients in developing sources of fulfilment within these broad life domains and offer motivational restructuring emphasizing these domains when lives are lacking in meaningful pursuit”. Domain-specific MIL-assessment can also be of importance for predictions in general, where contextualized measurements or domain-specific scales have been found to improve the predictive accuracy of various context relevant outcome measurements. For example, Swift and Peterson (2019) have found that a workplace-related consciousness measure, compared to a general consciousness measure, increases the predictive accuracy of various behaviours at work (e.g., workplace performance, workplace satisfaction, and workplace deviance).

The main point is that a definition and measure of MIL should include the spatial dimension, in terms of the central life domains, represented by, at least, the main-occupation and close relations.

Overview of the Four Dimensions of the MIL-Construct

An overview of the four dimensions of the MIL-construct is presented in Figure 1. As can be seen in the figure, it is suggested that the construct can be characterized by four dimensions: a content dimension, consisting of four sub-constructs; a temporal dimension, relating to past, present, and future; a spatial dimension, relating to various central life-domains; Finally, a dynamic dimension, that describes the perceived and expected changes in the content dimension, the spatial dimension, and the temporal dimension. To exemplify: (a) a person´s sense of MIL can partially be a result of his or her perceived rate of change, between the past and the present, towards a main purpose, related to work; (b) a person´s sense of MIL can also partially be a result of his or hers expected rate of change, between the present and the future, regarding mattering, related to close relationships. Thus, a person´s overall sense of MIL can be hypothesized to be a function of the beliefs he or she has about the various combinations of elements from the four dimensions.

Figure 1.

Overview of the four dimensions of the meaning-in-life construct

Beyond the Dimensions of the MIL-Construct

The aim of the present study was to describe commonalities and differences amongst the definitions and operationalisations of the MIL-construct, in order to reveal and suggest a more integrated definition of MIL. The aim was neither to investigate the antecedents of MIL (what causes MIL) nor its consequences (the effects of MIL). Nevertheless, even if it is not necessary for the definition of MIL to describe the theoretical framework (e.g., what causes MIL or how it affects other variables) it adds to a deeper understanding. However, review and discussion of the various theoretical frameworks for MIL falls outside the aim of the present study but will be the topic of a forthcoming study.

Conclusion

In the present study, previous findings were synthesized, and suggestions were given for future research on the definition and measurement of the MIL-construct. Based on the review, it was suggested that MIL is a multidimensional construct that has a content-, a dynamic-, a temporal, and a spatial-dimension. More specifically, based on the definitions on which the seven scales were based and, on the dimensions revealed in the present study, a synthesized and expanded but tentative definition of MIL is proposed.

The sense of meaning-in-life is defined as

• a quite stable yet dynamic perspective,

• which integrates the past, present, and future

• of fundamental life-domains,

• with regard to a motivational, cognitive, evaluative/affective and behavioural content, represented primarily in terms of purpose, comprehension, mattering, and manageability.

Main Suggestions for Future Research

It is a task for future research to investigate the merits of the suggested definition for conceptualization and measurement of the MIL. More specifically, the suggested four-dimensional definition (model) of MIL should be scrutinized theoretically and by qualitative studies. Based on the suggested definition, a scale for measuring MIL can be developed. Primarily to measure the four suggested sub-constructs of the content-dimension and secondarily to measure these sub-constructs in the most fundamental life-domains and in relation to the three time-perspectives, as well as to capture the dynamic aspect of MIL (as discussed by Battista & Almond, 1973).

Some Thoughts on Practical Applications

Thereafter, the task will be to apply the suggested definition and scale (yet to be developed, based on this definition) in practical contexts (e.g., counselling). This definition and scale could be used to identify aspects that contribute to a low sense of MIL and that need to be strengthened. This definition and scale could be used to assess which of the sub-constructs in the content dimension contribute most to a low sense of MIL and need to be strengthened. For example, is it a person´s lack of purpose or lack of confidence or ability to manage to achieve what she or he aims for? (cf., Baumeister & Vohs, 2005). This definition and scale could also be used to identify domains in the spatial dimension where low or high degrees of MIL are experienced. For example, if a person´s sense of MIL is exclusively dependent on the work-domain, then this may contribute to an existential crisis in connection with a potential dismissal or a retirement in the future (cf., Baumeister & Vohs, 2005; Emmons, 2003; Sirgy & Wu, 2009). Finally, assessing a person’s conceptions of her or his past, present, and future MIL (the central aspects of the temporal dimension and crucial for the dynamic dimension) can be used to identify which aspects may need to be strengthened in counselling. For example, a person may need to review the past, reconstrue the present, reimagine the future or integrate the past, present, and future events and processes to strengthen her or his MIL (cf., Baumeister et al., 2013; Routledge et al., 2012, 2013).

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank the anonymous reviewers for helpful observations and comments on the manuscript.

ORCID iD

Jacek Hochwälder

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Author Biography

Jacek Hochwälder has a MSc in statistics and a PhD in psychology from Stockholm University (Stockholm, Sweden). At present he works as an associate professor of psychology at Mälardalen University (Eskilstuna, Sweden). He has published over 40 articles and several scientific reports on social cognition, psychometrics and person-related resistance factors (e.g. sense of coherence) against various forms of mental ill-health (e.g. burnout).

References

Antonovsky

(1987). Unravelling the mystery of health; how people manage stress and stay well. Jossey-Bass.

Antonovsky

(1993). The structure and properties of the sense of coherence scale. Social Science & Medicine, 36(6), 725–733. https://doi.org/10.10116/0277-9536(93)90033-Z

Bandura

(1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman and Company.

Bandura

(2018). Toward a psychology of human agency: Pathways and reflections. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 130–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617699280

Battista

Almond

(1973). The development of meaning in life. Psychiatry, 36(4), 409–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1973.11023774

Baumeister

R. F.

(1991). Meanings of life. Guilford Press.

Baumeister

R. F.

Vohs

K. D.

(2005). The pursuit of meaningfulness in life. In Snyder

C. R.

Lopez

S. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 608–618). Oxford University Press.

Baumeister

R. F.

Vohs

K. D.

Aaker

J. L.

Garbinsky

E. N.

(2013). Some key differences between a happy life and a meaningful life. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(6), 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.830764

10.

Becker

C. M.

Glascoff

M. A.

Felts

W. M.

(2010). Salutogenesis 30 years later: Where do we go from here? The International Electronic Journal of Health Education, 13, 25–32.

11.

Blanché

(1957). Opposition et négation. Revue Philosophique de la France et de l´étrager, 147, 187–216.

12.

Brandstätter

Bauman

Borasio

G. D.

Fegg

M. J.

(2012). Systematic review of meaning in life assessment instruments. Psycho-Oncology, 21(10), 1034–1052. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.2113

13.

Cavazzoni

Fiorini

Veronese

(2022). How do we assess how agentic we are? A literature review of existing instruments to evaluate and measure individuals´ agency. Social Indicators Research, 159(3), 1125–1153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02791-8

14.

Chamberlain

Zika

(1988). Measuring meaning in life: An examination of three scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 9(3), 589–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(88)90157-2

15.

Crumbaugh

J. C.

(1968). Cross-validation of purpose-in-life test based on Frankl´s concepts. Journal of Individual Psychology, 24(1), 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-0867-z1.40

16.

Crumbaugh

J. C.

(1977). The seeking of noetic goals test (SONG). A complementary scale to the purpose in life test (PIL). Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33(3), 900–907. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(197707)33:3<900::aid-jclp2270330362>3.0.co;2-8

17.

Crumbaugh

J. C.

Maholick

L. T.

(1964). An experimental study in existentialism: The psychometric approach to Frankl´s will to meaning in religious order. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 20(2), 200–207. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(196404)20:2<200::aid-jclp2270200203>3.0.co;2-u

18.

Debats

(1998). Measurement of personal meaning: The psychometric properties of life regard index. In Wong

P. T. P.

Fry

P. S.

(Eds.), The human quest for meaning: A handbook of psychological research and clinical application (pp. 237–259). Erlbaum.

19.

Debats

D. L.

(1999). Sources of meaning: An investigation of significant commitments in life. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 39(4), 30–57. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022167899394003

20.

Debats

D. L.

Drost

Hansen

(1995). Experiences of meaning in life: A combined qualitative and quantitative approach. British Journal of Psychology, 86(3), 359–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1995.tb02758.x

21.

Delle Fave

Brdar

Wissing

M. O.

Vella-Brodrick

D. A.

(2013). Sources and motives for personal meaning in adulthood. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(6), 517–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.830761

22.

Eagleton

(2007). Meaning of life: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.

23.

Emmons

R. A.

(2003). Personal goals, life meaning, and virtue: Wellsprings of a positive life. In Keyes

C. L. M.

Haidt

(Eds.), Flourishing (pp. 105–128). APA.

24.

Eriksson

Lindström

(2005). Validity of Antonovsky´s sense of coherence scale: A systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 59(6), 460–466. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2003.018085

25.

Eriksson

Mittelmark

M. B.

(2017). The sense of coherence in the salutogenic model of health. In Mittelmark

M. B.

Sagy

Eriksson

Bauer

G. F.

Pelikan

J. M.

Lindström

Espnes

G. A.

(Eds.), The Handbook of Salutogenesis (1st ed., pp. 91-96). Springer International Publishing AG.

26.

Flynn

T. R.

(2006). Existentialism: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.

27.

Fowers

B. J.

Novak

L. K.

Kiknadze

N. C.

Calder

A. J.

(2023). Questioning contemporary universalist approaches to human flourishing. Review of General Psychology, 27(2), 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680221138230

28.

Frankl

V. E.

(2008). Man´s search for meaning. Rider.

29.

Garcia-Alandete

Rubio-Belmonte

Soucase Lozano

(2018). A replication of the Reker and Cousins´ study about the complementarity between the purpose-in-life test (PIL) and the seeking of noetic goals (SONG) among Spanish young people. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19(1), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9810-5

30.

GarciaAlandete

Rubio-Belmonte

Soucase Lozano

(2020). The seeking of noetic goals revised among Spanish young people. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 60(1), 77–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167816686228

31.

George

L. S.

Park

C. L.

(2016). Meaning in life as comprehension, purpose, and mattering: Toward integration and new research questions. Review of General Psychology, 20(3), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fgpr0000077

32.

George

L. S.

Park

C. L.

(2017). The multidimensional existential meaning scale: A tripartite approach to measuring meaning in life. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(6), 613–627. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1209546

33.

Heine

S. J.

Proulx

Vohs

K. D.

(2006). The meaning maintenance model: On the coherence of social motivations. Personality and Social Psychological Review, 10(2), 88–111. https://doi.org/10.1207%2Fs15327957pspr1002_1

34.

Heintzelman

King

L. A.

(2014a). (The feeling of) meaning-as-information. Personality and Social Psychological Review, 18(2), 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868313518487

35.

Heintzelman

S. J.

King

L. A.

(2014b). Life is pretty meaningful. American Psychologist, 69(6), 561–574. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035049

36.

Hicks

J. A.

King

L. A.

(2009). Meaning in life as a subjective judgment and a lived experience. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(4), 638–653. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00193.x

37.

Kierkegaard

(1843). Skrifter (Journalen): Søren Kierkegaard Research Center.

38.

King

L. A.

Heintzelman

S. J.

Ward

S. J.

(2016). Beyond the search for meaning: A contemporary science of the experience of meaning in life. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(4), 211–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416656354

39.

Kline

(2000). Handbook of psychological testing. Routledge.

40.

Leach

Tartaglia

(2018). The meaning in life and the great philosophers. Routledge.

41.

Leontiev

D. A.

(2013). Personal meaning: A challenge for psychology. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(6), 459–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.830767

42.

Martela

Steger

M. F.

(2016). The three meanings of meaning in life: Distinguishing coherence, purpose, and significance. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(5), 531–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1137623

43.

Martin

Sugarman

Thompson

(2003). Psychology and question of agency. SUNY Press.

44.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

(1991). Adding Liebe und Arbeit: The full five-factor model and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(2), 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F014616729101700217

45.

McCrae

R. R.

John

O. P.

(1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x

46.

Melton

A. M. A.

Schulenberg

S. E.

(2008). On the measurement of meaning: Logotherapy´s empirical contributions to humanistic psychology. The Humanistic Psychologist, 36(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/08873260701828870

47.

Park

C. L.

(2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustments to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 257–301. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018301

48.

Proulx

Inzlicht

(2012). The five “A”s of meaning maintenance: Finding meaning in the theories of sense-making. Psychological Inquiry, 23(4), 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2012.702372

49.

Reker

G. T.

Cousins

J. B.

(1979). Factor structure; construct validity and reliability of the seeking of noetic goals (SONG) and purpose in life (PIL) tests. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55(1), 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(197901)35:1<85::AID-JCLP2270350110>3.0.CO;2-R

50.

Routledge

Wildschut

Sedikides

Juhl

(2013). Nostalgia as a resource for psychological health and well-being. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(11), 808–818. https://doi.org/10.1111spc3.12070

51.

Routledge

Wildschut

Sedikides

Juhl

Arndt

(2012). The power of the past: Nostalgia as a meaning-making resource. Memory, 20(5), 452–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2012.677452

52.

Sandell

Blomberg

Lazar

(1998). The factor structure of Antonovsky´s sense of coherence scale in Swedish clinical and nonclinical samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 24(5), 701–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00225-0

53.

Schnell

(2004). Implizite Religiosität: Zur Psychologie des Lebenssinn. Pabst Science Publishers.

54.

Schnell

(2008). Deutsche in der Sinnkrise? Ein Einblick in die Sinnforschung mit Daten einer repräsentativen deutschen Stichprobe. Journal für Psychologie, 16(3), 1–22.

55.

Schnell

(2009). The sources of meaning and meaning in life questionnaire (SoMe): Relation to demographics and well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(6), 483–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760903271074

56.

Schnell

(2010). Existential indifference: Another quality of meaning in life. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 50(3), 351–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167809360259

57.

Schnell

(2014). Meaning in life operationalized: An empirical approach to existential psychology. In Kreitler

Urbanek

(Eds.), Conceptions of meaning (pp. 173–194). Nova Science.

58.

Schnell

Becker

(2006). Personality and meaning in life. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(1), 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.030

59.

Schnell

Becker

(2007). Der Fragebogen zu Lebensbedeutungen und Lebenssinn (LeBe). Hogrefe.

60.

Schulenberg

S. E.

Baczwaski

B. J.

Buchanan

E. M.

(2014). Measuring search for meaning: A factor-analytic evaluation of the seeking of noetic goals test (SONG). Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(3), 693–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9446-7

61.

Schulenberg

S. E.

Melton

A. M. A.

(2010). A confirmatory factor-analytic evaluation of the purpose in life test: Preliminary psychometric support for a replicable two-factor model. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(1), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-008-9124-3

62.

Seligman

M. E. P.

Csikszentmihalyi

(2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5

63.

Shterjovska

Achkovska-Leshkovska

E. A.

(2014). Time perspective as predictor of meaning in life. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 2(1), 25–29.

64.

Sirgy

(2009). The pleasant life, the engaged life, and the meaningful life: What about the balanced life? Journal of Happiness Studies, 10(2), 183–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-007-9074-1

65.

Steger

M. F.

(2007). Structural validity of the life regard index. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 40(2), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2007.11909808

66.

Steger

M. F.

Frazier

Oishi

Kaler

(2006). The meaning in life questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(1), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80

67.

Steger

M. F.

Kashdan

T. B.

Sullivan

B. A.

Lorentz

(2008). Understanding the search for meaning in life: Personality, cognitive style, and the dynamic between seeking and experiencing meaning. Journal of Personality, 76(2), 199–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14676494.2007.00484.x

68.

Swift

Peterson

J. B.

(2019). Contextualization as a means to improve predictive validity of personality models. Personality and Individual Differences, 144(4), 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.03.007

69.

Wiesmann

Ballas

Hannich

H.-J.

(2018). Sense of coherence, time perspective and positive aging. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19(3), 817–839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9850-5

70.

Yorke

(2001). Bipolarity…or not? Some conceptual problems relating to bipolarity rating scales. British Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920120037126

71.

Zheng

Wang

(2022). Time perspective in the self-regulatory mechanism of meaning in life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 23(2), 747–767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-021-00424-y

72.

Zimbardo

P. G.

Boyd

J. N.

(1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1271–1288. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1271

73.

Zimbardo

P. G.

Boyd

J. N.

(2008). The time paradox: The new psychology of time that will change your life. Free Press.