Individual differences in meaning-making: Considering the variety of sources of meaning, their density and diversity

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.006Get rights and content

Abstract

By employing a multi-dimensional inventory of sources of meaning (SoMe), individual differences in meaning-making are analysed. Sources of meaning as well as their density and diversity are related to experienced meaningfulness. It is hypothesised that sources of meaning are not functionally equivalent. Density and diversity are expected to relate positively to experienced meaningfulness. Drawing on a representative sample (N = 603), functional equivalence of sources of meaning is indeed refuted. Generativity is established as the most powerful predictor of meaningfulness. Meaningfulness increases significantly with density and diversity of sources of meaning; the relationship between density and meaningfulness is largely mediated by diversity. Findings indicate that commitment to numerous, diverse, and, especially, selftranscendent sources of meaning enhances the probability of living a meaningful life.

Highlights

Generativity is established as the most powerful predictor of meaningfulness. ► Meaningfulness increases with the amount of sources of meaning (density) drawn on. ► Meaningfulness also increases with the diversity of sources of meaning. ► The relationship between density and meaningfulness is mediated by diversity.

Introduction

Research on meaning in life is expanding, enhancing conceptual differentiation (King and Hicks, 2009, Schnell, 2009b, Schnell, 2010, Steger et al., 2008) and applicability (Krause, 2007, Mascaro and Rosen, 2005, Park, 2010). The study of sources of meaning, however, is startlingly neglected. The present study aims to contribute to the description and explanation of individual differences in meaning-making by investigating the functional equivalence of sources of meaning, their density and diversity with regard to the experience of meaningfulness. What sources do people draw on to generate or find meaning? How are individual differences in meaning-making linked to outcome variables such as the experience of meaningfulness?

In their philosophically-informed framework for the contours of positive human health, Ryff and Singer (1998) state that purpose and meaning result from “invested, committed living” (p. 8). Though the importance of commitment has been highlighted (e.g., Emmons, 2005, Maddi, 2006), little is known about the variety of commitments. Indubitably, there is a plethora of potential commitments to make and a wide range of possible sources of meaning to draw on. While a comprehensive view of individual differences in meaning-making is still a considerable way off, some research has been undertaken to identify sources of meaning and analyse their density and diversity.

Sources of meaning represent commitments to different areas of life from which meaning is derived (Schnell, 2009b). The most common research route to identify sources of meaning has been through the employment of qualitative methods. Among the first to empirically assemble major sources of meaning were Battista and Almond (1973). They reported six orientations: interpersonal, service, understanding, obtaining, expressive, and ethical. Building on a research program to categorise types of meaning, Ebersole (1998) differentiated this classification further. After asking adolescents, students, and other adults to describe their personal meaning, he identified eight types of meaning (see Table 1 for these and the following). O’Connor and Chamberlain (1996) conducted interviews to elicit in-depth accounts of sources of meaning, asking “What do you think of as an important source of meaning in your life?” (p. 466). All thus identified sources of meaning were allocated to five categories developed from analysis of previous research, plus an additional sixth category. Wong (1998) asked participants to describe characteristics of an ideal meaningful life; based on these, he developed the Personal Meaning Profile. In subsequent factor-analyses, seven sources of meaning were identified. Debats (1999) yielded a final system of eight meaning-in-life categories after inviting participants to describe “the three most important things that give meaning to [their] personal life” (p. 37). Bar-Tur, Savaya, and Prager (2001) arrived at 11 sources of meaning after factor-analysing items from the Sources of Life Meaning scale. The SLM had been developed by data from focus groups discussing the questions “What are the most important things in life?”, “What are the things that you consider most meaningful and necessary in life?”, and “What gives you a taste for life?” Moreover, students responded in writing to the open-ended question “What are the things you consider most meaningful and necessary in life?” (Prager, Savaya, & Bar-Tur, 2000, p. 126). Reker (2000), after reviewing relevant publications, named 17 sources of meaning occurring most often in the literature.

Schnell, 2009a, Schnell, 2009b combined qualitative and quantitative methods to arrive at a comprehensive inventory of sources of meaning. In contrast to previous studies, this research program did not rely on conscious notions of meaning in life. Instead, structured in-depth interviews were conducted to identify ultimate meanings underlying the contents of existentially relevant cognition (‘personal myth’), action (‘personal rituals’), and emotion (‘experiences of transcending’). A laddering technique (cf. Leontiev, 2007) was applied to all contents mentioned by the interviewees: they were repeatedly asked about contents’ meanings until an ultimate meaning was brought up that was no longer reducible to other meanings. After several cyclical processes of content-analyses, 26 sources of meaning remained. They are operationalised in the Sources of Meaning and Meaning in Life Questionnaire (SoMe; see below).

Table 1 shows a synopsis of sources of meaning identified by the different research programs. As the most comprehensive list, the SoMe 26 sources of meaning determine the composition of the synopsis. They represent almost all categories identified by the various research programs. They do not cover the level of basic needs common to all individuals, since these can be classified as deficit needs sensu Maslow (1970) and thus, show no inter-individual variation. Neither do they include extrinsic sources of meaning that are not pursued for their inherent worth, such as ‘obtaining’, ‘materiality’, or ‘financial security’. Commitments represented by sources of meaning are – by definition – inherently intrinsic (Schnell, 2009b); they represent ultimate levels of meaning. Wong’s ‘fair treatment’ scale measures the degree of feeling treated in a fair way by others; it represents no commitment and is therefore located on another conceptual level.

The fact that several of the 26 sources of meaning have not been identified by other research programs might be attributable to the methods employed. Sources of meaning can be described as ‘meaning in action’. They represent an active construction of reality, generating or seizing meaning (Leontiev, 1982, Schnell, 2009a). As such, they are accessible to reflection, but not easily retrievable spontaneously. The use of a laddering technique takes this into account, eliciting sources of meaning implicit in action, cognition, and emotion. When asked to produce sources of meaning spontaneously, the results can be expected to be (a) less differentiated, and (b) more effected by social expectations, norms and desirability.

Avenues to a meaningful life are believed to be multiple: “many (e.g., theistic, atheistic, and humanistic) ways of developing meaning in life coexist” (Debats, 1999), and various sources of meaning have the potential to generate meaningfulness (Battista and Almond, 1973, De Vogler-Ebersole and Ebersole, 1985, Kaufman, 1986, Reker and Wong, 1988, Schnell, 2009a, Schnell and Becker, 2006). Are all sources of meaning functionally equivalent? Some findings seem to indicate that certain sources of meaning, such as religiosity (Emmons, 2005, Schnell, 2010), or community (Debats, 1999, O’Connor and Chamberlain, 1996), are more predictive of meaningfulness than others. However, neither as yet has proven to contribute more to meaningfulness than other sources of meaning.

In considering the breadth of sources of meaning, two dimensions are potentially confounded, as is evident from the way it has been conceptualised, so far. Reker and Wong (1988) assumed the sense of meaning to increase with the variety of sources of meaning drawn on. De Vogler-Ebersole and Ebersole (1985) assessed breadth by asking participants to record how many areas of their lives they found meaningful, whereas O’Connor and Chamberlain (1996) counted the number of categories represented by specific reported sources, thus defining breadth as “diversification of sources of meaning” (p. 464). In order to distinguish clearly between different understandings of breadth, the following terminology is proposed: Density is measured by the number of sources of meaning an individual draws on; diversity stands for the number of domains of meaning represented by the sources of meaning relevant to an individual.

Section snippets

Predictions

The present study expects sources of meaning not to be functionally equivalent with regard to experienced meaningfulness. Density and diversity of sources of meaning are predicted to be positively related to meaningfulness.

Measures

Sources of meaning and meaningfulness were assessed by use of the SoMe (Schnell, 2009b, Schnell and Becker, 2007). This 151-item inventory allows for a highly differentiated measurement of 26 sources of meaning and provides separate measures for meaningfulness and crisis of meaning. All items are statements rated on a scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sources of meaning scales quantify the degree of realisation for each of the 26 orientations. The scales’ mean

Descriptive statistics

Table 2 provides correlations of all 26 sources of meaning with meaningfulness (independently measured). Generativity is most closely related to meaningfulness (r = .67), followed by attentiveness (r = .52) and harmony (r = .50).

Fig. 1 shows the distribution of density values. Seventeen percent of the sample report no personally relevant source of meaning, 14% one, and 55% two to eight. The median is 3.

The majority of the sample (63%) reports sources of meaning from two to five domains (see Fig. 2)

Discussion

Several taxonomies of sources of meaning exist. Derived from explicitly addressing the question of what makes life meaningful, they encompass between six and eleven sources of meaning. The Sources of Meaning and Meaning in Life Questionnaire (SoMe) is a more comprehensive inventory. It is based on the elicitation of implicit ultimate meanings underlying cognition, behavior, and emotion. The SoMe covers 26 sources of meaning which can be summarised by five domains. By means of this dimensional

Conclusions

By employment of a multidimensional inventory of sources of meaning, two main insights into individual differences in meaning-making could be gained. The first refers to the quantity of sources of meaning: Experiences of meaningfulness are clearly related to the variety of commitments held by an individual. Ryff and Singer’s (1998) claim, following Russell, that “purpose and meaning are, not in most instances, dropped effortlessly in one’s lap, but result from invested, committed living” (p. 8)

References (37)

  • L. Bar-Tur et al.

    Sources of meaning in life for young and old Israeli Jews and Arabs

    Journal of Aging Studies

    (2001)
  • T. Schnell et al.

    Personality and meaning in life

    Personalityand Individual Differences

    (2006)
  • J. Battista et al.

    Development of meaning in life

    Psychiatry-Interpersonal and Biological Processes

    (1973)
  • D.L. Debats

    Sources of meaning an investigation of significant commitments in life

    Journal of Humanistic Psychology

    (1999)
  • K. De Vogler-Ebersole et al.

    Depth of meaning in life – Explicit rating criteria

    Psychological Reports

    (1985)
  • P. Ebersole

    Types and depth of written life meanings

  • R.A. Emmons

    Striving for the sacred: personal goals, life meaning, and religion

    Journal of Social Issues

    (2005)
  • E.H. Erikson

    Childhood and society

    (1982)
  • P.A. Frazier et al.

    Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research

    Journal of Counseling Psychology

    (2004)
  • U. Goodenough

    Vertical and horizontal transcendence

    Zygon

    (2001)
  • S.J. Heine et al.

    The meaning maintenance model: On the coherence of human motivations

    Personality and Social Psychology Review

    (2006)
  • M. Hoof

    Freiwilligenarbeit und Religiosität

    (2010)
  • S.R. Kaufman

    The ageless self: Sources of meaning in late life

    (1986)
  • L.A. King et al.

    Detecting and constructing meaning in life events

    Positive Psychology

    (2009)
  • N. Krause

    Evaluating the stress-buffering function of meaning in life among older people

    Journal of Aging and Health

    (2007)
  • A.N. Leontiev

    Tätigkeit

    (1982)
  • D.A. Leontiev

    Approaching worldview structure with ultimate meanings technique

    Journal of Humanistic Psychology

    (2007)
  • S.R. Maddi

    Hardiness: The courage to grow from stresses

    Journal of Positive Psychology

    (2006)
  • Cited by (140)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text