The meaning in life questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life.

Abstract

Counseling psychologists often work with clients to increase their well-being as well as to decrease their distress. One important aspect of well-being, highlighted particularly in humanistic theories of the counseling process, is perceived meaning in life. However, poor measurement has hampered research on meaning in life. In 3 studies, evidence is provided for the internal consistency, temporal stability, factor structure, and validity of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ), a new 10-item measure of the presence of, and the search for, meaning in life. A multitrait-multimethod matrix demonstrates the convergent and discriminant validity of the MLQ subscales across time and informants, in comparison with 2 other meaning scales. The MLQ offers several improvements over current meaning in life measures, including no item overlap with distress measures, a stable factor structure, better discriminant validity, a briefer format, and the ability to measure the search for meaning.Keywords: meaning in life, purpose in life, measurement, scale construction, well-beingIn recent years the construct of meaning in life has received renewed attention and legitimacy, perhaps in conjunction with a growing focus on positive traits and psychological strengths (Ryan & Deci, 2001;Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Invariably, meaning in life is regarded as a positive variable-an indicator of well-being (Ryff, 1989), a facilitator of adaptive coping (Park & Folkman, 1997), or a marker of therapeutic growth (Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1964;Frankl, 1965). A recent report in the Journal of Counseling Psychology advocated for the understanding and assessment of well-being variables such as meaning in life in order to promote client growth and recovery (Lent, 2004). Despite substantial progress over the 40-year history of empirical research on meaning and the resurgence presently occurring, existing research seems unable to answer many fundamental questions about the construct. We argue that better measurement will help advance this research by providing a measure of therapeutic outcome and personal growth that counseling psychologists historically have been interested in, particularly those influenced by the humanistic tradition of promoting growth and not simply decreasing symptoms. The purpose of the present research was to develop an improved measure of meaning in life. Overview of Meaning in Life LiteratureThe definition of meaning in life varies throughout the field, ranging from coherence in one's life (Battista & Almond, 1973;Reker & Wong, 1988) to goal directedness or purposefulness (e.g., Ryff & Singer, 1998) to "the ontological significance of life from the point of view of the experiencing individual" (Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1964, p. 201). Others offer semantic definitions (e.g., "What does my life mean?"; Baumeister, 1991;Yalom, 1980). Likewise, there is diversity in perspectives regarding how to achieve meaning in life. Because there is no universal meaning that can fit everyone's life (Frankl, 1965), each person must crea...

Boredom begs to differ: Differentiation from other negative emotions.

“…For example, boredom proneness predicts aggression (Dahlen et al, 2004), but so do frustration (e.g., Miller, 1941) and anger (Maiuro, Vitaliano, & Cahn, 1987). Furthermore, although empirical work has confirmed that boredom involves a sense of meaninglessness (Fahlman, Mercer, Gaskocski, Eastwood, & Eastwood, 2009;Van Tilburg & Igou, 2012), so do sadness and feelings of depression (Steger, Frazier, Oishi, & Kaler, 2006). Likewise, boredom is linked to withdrawal behavior (Geiwitz, 1966), but so is disgust (Harlé, & Sanfey, 2010).…”

Assessment of spiritual suffering in the cancer context: A systematic literature review

“…Some 20 scales were identified that measured meaning: the Chinese Cancer Coherence Scale (CCCS) (Chan et al, 2007); the Constructed Meaning Scale (Fife, 1995); the meaning/peace subscale of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy -Spiritual Well-Being Scale (FACIT-Sp) (Canada et al, 2008;Murphy et al, 2010;Peterman et al, 2002); the Illness Cognitions Questionnaire (ICQ) (Evers et al, 2001); the Internal Coherence Scale (ICS) (Kroz et al, 2009); the Life Attitude Profile (LAP)/ Life Attitude Profile -Revised (LAP -R) (Reker, 1992;Reker & Peacock, 1981); the Life Evaluation Questionnaire (LEQ) (Salmon et al, 1996); the Meaning in Life questions (including the Benefit Finding Scale [BFS]) used by Tomich and Helgeson (2002); the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ) (Steger et al, 2006); the Meaning in Life Scale (MILS) (Jim et al, 2006); the Meaning in Suffering Test (MIST) (Starck, 1983); the Perceived Meanings of Cancer Pain Inventory (PMCPI) (Chen, 1999); the Personal Meaning Profile (PMP) (Wong, 1998); the Positive Meaning and Vulnerability Scale (Bower et al, 2005); the Purpose in Life (PIL) Test (Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1964); the Purposelessness, Understimulation, and Boredom (PUB) Scale (Passik et al, 2003); the Schedule for Meaning in Life Evaluation (SMiLE) (Fegg et al, 2008); the Sense of Coherence (SOC) Scale (Antonovsky, 1993); the Sources of Meaning Profile (SOMP)/Sources of Meaning Profile -Revised (SOMP -R) (Reker, 1996); and the World Assumptions Scale (Janoff-Bulman, 1989). The optimal measure of meaning will vary depending on the purpose and context of the assessment.…”

Prolonged grief symptomatology following violent loss: the mediating role of meaning

“…However, death-related loss can challenge the orienting system of the bereft leading them to engage in meaning making (Park, 2010; Park & Folkman, 1997). This process entails retaining, reaffirming, revising, and/or replacing elements of the orienting system to develop more nuanced, complex, and useful narratives that accommodate the reality of the loss and its implications for the mourner (Bonanno, Wortman, & Nesse, 2004; Gillies, Neimeyer, & Milman, 2014; MacKinnon et al, 2013; Neimeyer, 2000; Neimeyer & Sands, 2011; Park, 2010; Steger, Frazier, Oishi, & Kaler, 2006). When the bereft make progress in negotiating the effect of the loss on their orienting systems, they have made meaning (Gillies et al, 2014).…”