The Comprehensive Measure of Meaning

Abstract

Psychological researchers have advanced several instruments to measure meaning. Philosophers have debated the objective versus subjective status of meaning in life and on the global versus individual or personal aspects of meaning. In this chapter, the authors make use of an emerging consensus in the psychology literature concerning a tripartite structure of meaning as cognitive coherence, affective significance, and motivational direction. They enrich this understanding with important philosophical distinctions to distinguish subdomains within this tripartite understanding. The authors use relevant philosophical distinctions to classify existing measurement items into a seven-fold structure intended to more comprehensively assess an individual’s sense of meaning. The proposed measure, with three items in each subdomain drawn from previous scales, constitutes what is put forward as the Comprehensive Measure of Meaning to hopefully enrich the empirical research on the assessment of, and on the causes and effects of, having a sense of meaning.

What makes life purposeful? Identifying the antecedents of a sense of purpose in life using a lagged exposure-wide approach

“…It is also important to note that our study focused on purpose - which is more goal, end, or action oriented - rather than on on the broader construct of meaning – which is more cognitive and concerns understanding a broader context ( Hanson & VanderWeele, 2021 ). It is possible that later in life, close social relationships still provide meaning but provide less purpose.…”

“…It is possible that later in life, close social relationships still provide meaning but provide less purpose. While the terms “meaning” and “purpose” are sometimes used interchangeably, there are important distinctions which are becoming increasingly recognized and subject to distinct assessments ( George & Park, 2016 , 2017 ; Hanson & VanderWeele, 2021 ; Martela & Steger, 2016 ). Unfortunately, one limitation of the present data is that the assessments only concerned purpose and not meaning.…”

“…, 2020a ; Kim et al, 2020b ; Yemiscigil & Vlaev, 2021 ), improved biological functioning (e.g., reduced allostatic load, reduced inflammation; Zilioli et al, 2015 ; Hafez et al, 2018 ), and better physical health outcomes (e.g., improved physical functioning and reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, cognitive impairment, and mortality; Yu et al, 2015 ; Cohen et al, 2016 ; Lewis et al, 2016 ; Kim et al, 2017 ; Chen et al, 2019 ; Kim et al, 2019 ; Kim, Tkatch, et al, 2021 ; Shiba et al, 2021 ; Willroth et al, 2021 ). Purpose is, of course, also desired by many for its own sake, giving one's activities and life goals a broader context ( Hanson & VanderWeele, 2021 ; Lee et al, 2021 ; VanderWeele, 2017 ).…”

Novel Psychometric Indicator Assessments: The Relative Excess Correlation and Associated Matrices

“…First, in certain assessments, indicators are grouped hierarchically not just into domains, but also into subdomains (e.g. Su et al, 2014;Hanson and VanderWeele, 2021). The REC approach described above could in principle be applied both to sub-domains and to domains, and the approach could be employed at either level, or in a nested manner, first grouping indicators into their subdomains, and then sub-domains into their domains.…”

Who and what belongs to us? Towards a comprehensive concept of inclusion and planetary citizenship

“…Eudaimonic well-being also depends on how people value their life as part of the world around them. It is about the purpose of one's aspirations in the world (Hanson and VanderWeele, 2021). Furthermore, an extended circle of morality is needed for human growth, because life on Earth is 'existentially intertwined in a common destiny, both as a species and as a biospheric community' (Stein, 2023, p. 124).…”