Filetype PDF | Posted on 20 Sep 2022 | 3 years ago
Authentication
digital resources
134x Filetype PDF File size 0.34 MB Source: www.uibk.ac.at
Personality and Individual Differences 51 (2011) 667–673
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Individual differences in meaning-making: Considering the variety of sources
of meaning, their density and diversity
Tatjana Schnell⇑
University of Innsbruck, Institute of Psychology, 52, Innrain, Innsbruck 6020, Austria
article info abstract
Article history: By employing a multi-dimensional inventory of sources of meaning (SoMe), individual differences in
Received 11 March 2011 meaning-making are analysed. Sources of meaning as well as their density and diversity are related to
Received in revised form 26 May 2011 experienced meaningfulness. It is hypothesised that sources of meaning are not functionally equivalent.
Accepted 6 June 2011 Density and diversity are expected to relate positively to experienced meaningfulness. Drawing on a rep-
Available online 8 July 2011 resentative sample (N = 603), functional equivalence of sources of meaning is indeed refuted. Generativ-
Keywords: ity is established as the most powerful predictor of meaningfulness. Meaningfulness increases
Meaning in life signicantly with density and diversity of sources of meaning; the relationship between density and
Sources of meaning meaningfulness is largely mediated by diversity. Findings indicate that commitment to numerous,
Meaningfulness diverse, and, especially, selftranscendent sources of meaning enhances the probability of living a mean-
SoMe ingful life.
Selftranscendence 2011Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Generativity
Diversity
Density
1. Introduction research has been undertaken to identify sources of meaning and
analyse their density and diversity.
Researchonmeaninginlifeisexpanding,enhancingconceptual
differentiation (King & Hicks, 2009; Schnell, 2009b, 2010; Steger,
Kashdan, Sullivan, & Lorentz, 2008) and applicability (Krause, 1.1. The variety of sources of meaning
2007; Mascaro & Rosen, 2005; Park, 2010). The study of sources
of meaning, however, is startlingly neglected. The present study Sources of meaning represent commitments to different areas
aimstocontribute to the description and explanation of individual of life from which meaning is derived (Schnell, 2009b). The most
differences in meaning-making by investigating the functional common research route to identify sources of meaning has been
equivalenceofsourcesofmeaning,theirdensityanddiversitywith through the employment of qualitative methods. Among the rst
regard to the experience of meaningfulness. What sources do peo- to empirically assemble major sources of meaning were Battista
ple draw on to generate or nd meaning? How are individual and Almond (1973). They reported six orientations: interpersonal,
differences in meaning-making linked to outcome variables such service, understanding, obtaining, expressive, and ethical. Building
as the experience of meaningfulness? on a research program to categorise types of meaning, Ebersole
In their philosophically-informed framework for the contoursof (1998) differentiated this classication further. After asking ado-
positive human health, Ryff and Singer (1998) state that purpose lescents, students, and other adults to describe their personal
and meaning result from invested, committed living (p. 8). meaning, he identied eight types of meaning (see Table 1 for
Though the importance of commitment has been highlighted these and the following). OConnor and Chamberlain (1996) con-
(e.g., Emmons, 2005; Maddi, 2006), little is known about the vari- ducted interviews to elicit in-depth accounts of sources of mean-
ety of commitments. Indubitably, there is a plethora of potential ing, asking What do you think of as an important source of
commitments to make and a wide range of possible sources of meaninginyourlife?(p.466).Allthusidentiedsourcesofmean-
meaning to draw on. While a comprehensive view of individual ing were allocated to ve categories developed from analysis of
differences in meaning-makingis still a considerable way off, some 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 Mean-
⇑ Tel.: +43 512 507 5651; fax: +43 512 507 2835. ing Prole. In subsequent factor-analyses, seven sources of mean-
E-mail address: tatjana.schnell@uibk.ac.at ing were identied. Debats (1999) yielded a nal system of eight
0191-8869/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.006
668 T. Schnell/Personality and Individual Differences 51 (2011) 667–673
meaning-in-life categories after inviting participants to describe (Emmons, 2005; Schnell, 2010), or community (Debats, 1999;
the three most important things that give meaning to [their] per- OConnor & Chamberlain, 1996), are more predictive of meaning-
sonal life (p. 37). Bar-Tur, Savaya, and Prager (2001) arrived at 11 fulness than others. However, neither as yet has proven to contrib-
sources of meaning after factor-analysing items from the Sources ute more to meaningfulness than other sources of meaning.
of Life Meaning scale. The SLM had been developed by data from
focus groups discussing the questions What are the most impor- 1.3. Breadth of sources of meaning: Density and diversity
tant things in life?, What are the things that you consider most
meaningful and necessary in life?, and What gives you a taste In considering the breadth of sources of meaning, two dimen-
for life? Moreover, students responded in writing to the open- sions are potentially confounded, as is evident from the way it
ended question What are the things you consider most meaning- has been conceptualised, so far. Reker and Wong (1988) assumed
ful and necessary in life? (Prager, Savaya, & Bar-Tur, 2000, p. 126). the sense of meaning to increase with the variety of sources of
Reker (2000), after reviewing relevant publications, named 17 meaning drawn on. De Vogler-Ebersole and Ebersole (1985) as-
sources of meaning occurring most often in the literature. sessed breadth by asking participants to record how many areas
Schnell (2009a, 2009b) combined qualitative and quantitative of their lives they found meaningful, whereas OConnor and Cham-
methods to arrive at a comprehensive inventory of sources of berlain (1996) counted the number of categories represented by
meaning. In contrast to previous studies, this research program specic reported sources, thus dening breadth as diversication
did not rely on conscious notions of meaning in life. Instead, struc- of sources of meaning (p. 464). In order to distinguish clearly be-
tured in-depth interviews were conducted to identify ultimate tweendifferentunderstandingsofbreadth,thefollowingterminol-
meanings underlying the contents of existentially relevant cogni- ogy is proposed: Density is measured by the number of sources of
tion (personal myth), action (personal rituals), and emotion meaninganindividualdrawson;diversitystandsforthenumberof
(experiencesof transcending). A laddering technique (cf. Leontiev, domains of meaning represented by the sources of meaning rele-
2007) was applied to all contents mentioned by the interviewees: vant to an individual.
theywererepeatedlyaskedaboutcontentsmeaningsuntilanulti-
mate meaning was brought up that was no longer reducible to 2. Predictions
other meanings. After several cyclical processes of content-analy-
ses, 26 sources of meaning remained. They are operationalised in The present study expects sources of meaning not to be func-
the Sources of Meaning and Meaning in Life Questionnaire (SoMe; tionally equivalent with regard to experienced meaningfulness.
see below). Density and diversity of sources of meaning are predicted to be
Table 1 shows a synopsis of sources of meaning identied by positively related to meaningfulness.
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 identied by 3. Material and methods
the various research programs. They do not cover the level of basic
needs common to all individuals, since these can be classied as 3.1. Measures
decitneedssensuMaslow(1970)andthus,shownointer-individ-
ual variation. Neither do they include extrinsic sources of meaning Sources of meaning and meaningfulness were assessed by use
that are not pursued for their inherent worth, such as obtaining, of the SoMe (Schnell, 2009b; Schnell & Becker, 2007). This 151-
materiality, or nancial security. Commitments represented by item inventory allows for a highly differentiated measurement of
sources of meaning are – by denition – inherently intrinsic 26 sources of meaning and provides separate measures for mean-
(Schnell, 2009b); they represent ultimate levels of meaning. ingfulness and crisis of meaning. All items are statements rated on
Wongsfairtreatmentscalemeasuresthedegreeoffeelingtreated a scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sources
in a fair way by others; it represents no commitment and is there- of meaning scales quantify the degree of realisation for each of
fore located on another conceptual level. the 26 orientations. The scales mean inter-correlation is .26, rang-
Thefactthatseveralofthe26sourcesofmeaninghavenotbeen ing from .19 to .64. Repeated orthogonal as well as oblique factor
identied by other research programs might be attributable to the analyses suggest a summaryof these by four (or ve, resp.) dimen-
methodsemployed.Sourcesofmeaningcanbedescribedasmean- sions (for details see Schnell, 2009b; Schnell & Becker, 2007):
ing in action. They represent an active construction of reality, gen-
erating or seizing meaning (Leontiev, 1982; Schnell, 2009a). As (1) Selftranscendence: Commitment to objectives beyond ones
such, they are accessible to reection, but not easily retrievable immediate needs.
spontaneously. The use of a laddering technique takes this into ac-
count,eliciting sources of meaning implicit in action, cognition, and Forfurther,practically relevant, differentiation betweenvertical
emotion. When asked to produce sources of meaning spontane- and horizontal orientations (cf. Goodenough, 2001; Schnell, 2003,
ously, the results can be expected to be (a) less differentiated, 2009a) and supported by factor-analysis of its items, this dimen-
and (b) more effected by social expectations, norms and sion is divided into two sub-dimensions:
desirability.
(1a) Vertical selftranscendence: Orientation towards an immate-
1.2. Functional equivalence of sources of meaning rial, supernatural power (sample item: My religion gives me
strength.)
Avenuestoameaningfullifearebelievedtobemultiple:many (1b) Horizontal selftranscendence: Taking responsibility for
(e.g., theistic, atheistic, and humanistic) ways of developing mean- (worldly) affairs beyond ones immediate concerns (sample
ing in life coexist (Debats, 1999), and various sources of meaning item: I strive to do something for future generations.)
have the potential to generate meaningfulness (Battista & Almond, (2) Selfactualisation: Employing, challenging, and fostering ones
1973; De Vogler-Ebersole & Ebersole, 1985; Kaufman, 1986; Reker capacities (sample item: I am always striving to change and
& Wong, 1988; Schnell, 2009a; Schnell & Becker, 2006). Are all improve myself.)
sources of meaning functionally equivalent? Some ndings seem (3) Order: Holding on to values, practicality, decency, and the
to indicate that certain sources of meaning, such as religiosity tried and tested (sample item: I like to hold on to traditions.)
T. Schnell/Personality and Individual Differences 51 (2011) 667–673 669
Table 1
Sources of meaning identied by different research programs.
8 types of 6 sources of meaning 7 sources of 7 meaning-in-life 11 sources of meaning 17 most frequently cited 26 sources of
meaning (OConnor and meaning (Wong, categories (Debats, (Bar-Tur et al., 2001) sources of meaning (Reker, meaning(Schnell,
(Ebersole, 1998) Chamberlain, 1996) 1998) 1999) ?SLM 2000) 2009b)
?PMP ?SoMe
Religious & Religious and spiritual Beliefs/religious, Vertical Self-
spiritual spiritual transcendence
belief
Religion Religious Activities Explicit religiosity
Spirituality
Horizontal Self-
transcendence
Service Social and political Beliefs/social, Communal activity Socialcauses/ Social
political humanisticconcerns commitment
Relationship with nature Being with animals Relationship with nature Unison with
nature
Self-acceptance Self-knowledge
Health Personal well- Health
being/health
Selftranscendence Leaving a legacy Generativity
Self-actualisation Self-actualisation
Challenge
Autonomy and Individualism
independence
Power
Growth Personal development Self-development Personal growth Development
Life work Achievement Lifework Personal achievements Achievement
Freedom
Knowledge
Creativity Creative activities Creativity
Order
Family and communal Tradition and culture Tradition
values
Practicality
Humanvalues and ideals Morality
Reason
Well-being and
relatedness
Relationships Relationships with people Relationship Relationships/ Interpersonal/family Personal relationships Community
family, friends, relationships family/friends
others
Leisure activities with Hedonistic activities Fun
others
Intimacy Relationships/ Spouse relationship Love
partner, lover
Pleasure Personal well- Leisure activities Comfort
being/pleasure
Service Altruism Care
Personal well- Attentiveness
being/appreciation
of life
Attainment of Harmony
tranquility
Obtaining Fair treatment Materiality Materialistic concerns Basic, everyday needs Not classiable
Financial security Material
possessions
Note: Representation is based on explanations and examples given for specic sources of meaning.
(4) Well-being and relatedness: Cultivating and enjoying lifes I feel I belong to something bigger than myself.
pleasures in privacy and company (sample item: I take trou- I lead a fullled life.
ble to cultivate my relationships.) I think my life has a deeper meaning.
Internal consistencies for the domains average .89, for the The SoMes construct, discriminant, factorial, and incremental
scales, .79. validity have been demonstrated in numerous studies (Hoof,
Meaningfulness is dened as a fundamental sense of meaning, 2010; Schnell, 2009a, 2009b, 2010; Schnell & Becker, 2006, 2007;
basedonanappraisalofoneslifeascoherent,signicant,directed, Schnell & Hoof, in press; Schnell & Keenan, 2011).
andbelonging(Schnell,2009b).Themeaningfulnessscale(Cronbach Density of meaning (range 0–26) is measured by adding up all
a=.74)measuresthedegreeofsubjectivelyexperiencedmeaning- personallyrelevantsourcesofmeaning,i.e.thosewithmeanvalues
fulness. Its items (revised English translation) read: of agreement P1SD from the population mean.
Diversity of meaning (range 0–5) is calculated by counting the
I think that there is meaning in what I do. numberofdomainsrepresentedbythepersonallyrelevantsources
I have a goal in life. of meaning.
670 T. Schnell/Personality and Individual Differences 51 (2011) 667–673
3.2. Participants
The SoMe was completed by a representative German sample
(N=616).Individualparticipantswererandomlyselected,following
a proportionate stratication strategy. Return rate was 67%. Distri-
bution of sex, age, and place of residence are analogous to that in
the total population. After eliminating incomplete records and
excluding multivariate outliers, 603 datasets remained. A total of
53%oftheserespondentsarefemale.Agerangesfrom16to85years
(M=45, SD=17); 15% are single, 18% live with a partner, 55% are
married. One fth of the respondents only has general education;
25%haveobtainedO-levels,17%A-levels.Thirty-eightpercenthave
graduated from technical college or university. Different aspects of
this dataset have been analysed in Schnell, 2009b and 2010.
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive statistics
Fig. 1. Distribution of density of sources of meaning; range 0–26.
Table 2 provides correlations of all 26 sources of meaning with
meaningfulness (independently measured). Generativity is most committed to only one domain. The mean diversity value is
closely related to meaningfulness (r = .67), followed by attentive- M=2.21(SD=1.54).
ness (r = .52) and harmony (r = .50).
Fig. 1 shows the distribution of density values. Seventeen per- 4.2. Functional equivalence of sources of meaning?
cent of the sample report no personally relevant source of mean-
ing, 14% one, and 55% two to eight. The median is 3. As shown in Table 2, correlations between sources of meaning
The majority of the sample (63%) reports sources of meaning 2
and meaningfulness vary signicantly ({ =273.27, df=25,
from two to ve domains (see Fig. 2) and can thus be said to p<.001; cf. Meng, Rosenthal, & Rubin, 1992); they are thus not
demonstrate diversity at different degrees. Nineteen percent are functionally equivalent. A standard multiple regression of the 26
sources of meaning on meaningfulness identies eight positive
Table 2 predictors of meaningfulness: generativity, harmony, explicit religi-
Regression of 26 sources of meaning on meaningfulness: beta weights and osity, power, practicality, spirituality, development, and creativity
correlations. (see Table 2). The predictor weight for tradition is negative, in spite
Standardised Sig. Zero-order correlation of its positive correlation with meaningfulness, and thus seems to
coefcient beta with meaningfulness result from net suppression. Altogether, 60% of the variability in
Vertical Selftranscendence meaningfulness are predicted by the 26 sources of meaning
* (F(26, 576) = 33.26, p < .001, with R = .78).
Explicit religiosity .16 .00 .42
*
Spirituality .11 .00 .44
Horizontal selftranscendence 4.3. The relationship between density and meaningfulness
*
Generativity .33 .00 .67
Unison with nature .02 .60 .40* Densityis strongly related to meaningfulness (
* q=.52).It is best
Social commitment .05 .20 .35 2
* understood as a quadratic function (R =.35), as shown by Fig. 3.
Health .02 .52 .33
*
Self-knowledge .06 .11 .35
Selfactualisation
*
Individualism .07 .11 .23
*
Challenge .07 .10 .17
*
Development .10 .03 .45
*
Power .15 .00 .33
*
Freedom .03 .35 .14
*
Creativity .08 .02 .40
*
Knowledge .02 .51 .32
*
Achievement .05 .22 .23
Order
*
Reason .04 .22 .26
*
Tradition .16 .00 .17
Morality .01 .78 .40*
*
Practicality .13 .00 .29
Well-being and relatedness
*
Community .04 .37 .38
*
Fun .01 .80 .24
*
Love .03 .44 .31
*
Harmony .19 .00 .50
*
Comfort .01 .85 .16
Care .04 .25 .40*
*
Attentiveness .07 .09 .52
Note: N=603; * p<.001. Fig. 2. Distribution of diversity of sources of meaning; range 0–5.
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.
