is searching for meaning in life associated with reduced subjective well-being? confirmation and...

Is Searching for Meaning in Life Associated WithReduced Subjective Well-Being? Confirmationand Possible Moderators

Karen Cohen • David Cairns

Published online: 23 April 2011� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract Meaning in life has been identified as an important element of well-being.

Recently attention has been directed to examining the differences between having meaning

in life and searching for meaning in life. Theory has speculated that if an individual is

searching for meaning in life, he/she may be distressed. Researchers of late have begun to

focus on the process of searching for meaning in life to gain a better understanding of the

individual differences which may exist. Interest has also been directed towards exploring

whether any moderators of the possible negative effects of the searching process may exist.

This research investigated the hypothesised negative link between high levels of searching

for meaning in life and subjective well-being and the positive moderating effects of

presence of meaning in life while also exploring the influence of the demographic variables

which were treated as control variables. From an exploratory stance further analysis

examined the hypothesised positive moderating effects of self-actualisation, self-efficacy

and achievement motives on the relationship between searching for meaning and sub-

jective well-being. One study (n = 500) was conducted to assess the hypothesized rela-

tionships. The study confirmed the negative relationship between high levels of searching

for meaning in life and subjective well-being and positive moderating effects that presence

of meaning in life and self-actualisation have on happiness scores when individuals are

searching for meaning in life. Self-efficacy and achievement motives were shown to have

no significant moderating effects on searching for meaning in life and subjective wellbeing.

Overall the results suggest that individuals who record high levels of searching for

meaning in life are protected from the negative outcomes of this process by holding high

levels of presence of meaning in life and self-actualisation.

The author wishes to dedicate this article to his colleague, David Cairns, who died before the article waspublished.

K. Cohen (&) � D. CairnsMacquarie University, Sydney, Australiae-mail: [email protected]

K. Cohen5 Gregory St, Roseville, NSW 2069, Australia

123

J Happiness Stud (2012) 13:313–331DOI 10.1007/s10902-011-9265-7

Keywords Search for meaning in life � Subjective well-being � Self actualisation �Self efficacy � Achievement motivation

1 Introduction

Over the past fifty years scientific psychological research has attempted to understand and

clarify the concept of meaning in life. In particular, focus has been directed towards an

assessment of the impact that having, or not having meaning in life has on an individual’s

existence. Encompassed within this area of intellectual pursuit is an exploration of the

positive aspects of mental health. In turn, rather than focus on the deficits which may exist

in an individual’s life the research has sought to uncover the factors that aid, and augment,

an individual’s ability to develop and enhance subjective well-being and to lead a

meaningful life.

The long standing interest in the concept of meaning in life has generated varied views

on how an individual finds meaning in their life as well as the characteristics of a

meaningful life. General themes emerge as important but most agree that meaning in life is

crucial for individuals. Battista and Almond (1973) expressed their view that there is no

single theory that completely explains or conveys an accurate description of meaning in

life. Instead, there are a number of theories that appear to rest on similar foundations.

Philosophy, psychiatry and psychology have attempted to understand the concept of

meaning in life. Contributors from each of these fields have speculated about the factors

that influence meaning in life and the effect meaning in life has on the individual. Victor

Frankl—a prisoner at the Turkheim concentration camp during the Second World War—

gives careful consideration to the concept of meaning in life in his text, Man’s Search forMeaning (1959/2006). Frankl was curious to understand how some of the other prisoners

could find meaning in what was happening to them. He concluded that ‘‘meaning in life

differs from man to man, from day to day and from hour to hour’’ (p. 110); ‘‘that meaning

in life always changes, but it never ceases to be’’ (p. 113); and ‘‘that true meaning in life is

to be found in the world, rather than within man or his own psyche, as though it were a

closed system’’ (p. 112).

Meaning is believed to be achieved through a variety of different paths such as from:

goal directedness (Ryff and Singer 1998); a sense of coherence in life (Battista and

Almond 1973); the pursuit and attainment of worthwhile goals (Reker and Wong 1988) and

through the need for self-efficacy, values in life, purpose in life and self-worth (Baumeister

and Wilson 1996). The affective component of meaning in life comprises the feelings of

satisfaction (happiness) and fulfilment that arises when an individual achieves their goals

and through general life experiences. Reker (2000) explained that striving for happiness

may not guarantee meaningfulness, but any activity that provides meaning must also

provide happiness. This association of happiness with the achievement of meaningful goals

supports views raised by earlier philosophers, such as Aristotle (1955).

Does meaning in life contribute to an individual’s subjective well-being? Several

studies have identified that there are positive psychological benefits for individuals when

they have a sense of purpose and meaning in life (Shek 1992; Debats et al. 1993; Debats

et al. 1995; King and Napa 1998; Debats 1999; Robak and Griffin 2000; Scannell et al.

2002; King et al. 2006; Steger and Kashdan 2007). Zika and Chamberlain (1987, 1992)

found meaning in life was consistently related to positive psychological well-being, which

included life satisfaction and positive affect. Baumeister and Vohs (2005) explored the

314 K. Cohen, D. Cairns

123

relationship between happiness and meaning in life and proposed that the two concepts

were not opposites or negatively correlated, suggesting, rather that ‘‘meaning is necessary

but not sufficient for happiness’’ (p. 612). Baumeister and Vohs speculated that if an

individual’s life is lacking in meaning, then this individual will probably be unable to

achieve happiness. It appears that meaning in life and happiness display associations which

warrant further exploration.

To explore some of the associations between happiness and meaning in life research has

recently begun to focus on examining presence of meaning in life and search for meaning

in life as separate constructs aided by the use of the Meaning In Life Questionnaire (Steger

et al. 2006). Studies have been directed to exploring the impacts of having meaning in life,

searching for meaning in life and the interaction between the two constructs. Results have

shown that those individuals who possess meaning in life report: greater happiness (Steger

et al. 2008a; Park et al. 2010; Westerhof et al. 2010), greater life satisfaction (Steger et al.

in press), reduced health anxiety (Steger et al. 2009) with the presence of meaning in life

acting as a moderator to distress which may arise while searching for meaning in life.

A vast number of studies have focused on the impacts of having, or not having meaning

and what contributes to meaning in life, but limited attention appears to have been directed

towards exploring the possible outcomes that may occur when an individual searches for

meaning in life (Frankl 1959/2006; Yalom 1980; Steger et al. 2006). The search for

meaning is characterised by open-mindedness and reflective thinking that can affect the

way people evaluate their experience (Steger and Kashdan 2007). Frankl regarded

searching for meaning in life as a primary motivation of mankind, the actions of which,

contribute to psychological well-being. If this process is so implicit for man and meaning

cannot be found, what outcomes could we surmise may occur?

Frankl (1959/2006) and Maddi (1970) conceptualised the search for meaning in life as a

core psychological motivation. According to Frankl it is only the individual who can

uncover meaning in their life, and once that has been achieved, the search will be satisfied.

The searching process may arouse inner tensions, but Frankl believed that these tensions

are ‘‘an indispensable prerequisite of mental health’’ (p. 103). These tensions between what

has been achieved and what is still to be achieved encourage an individual to reach their

full potential, adding to their sense of having a meaningful life. Frankl suggested that when

an individual is searching for meaning in life frustration may arise and cause distress and if

the search is blocked a pathological state called ‘noogenic neurosis’ can develop.

Steger and Kashdan (2007) speculated that if an individual experiences an absence of

meaning in life, because meaning is such a core motivation, the individual should be driven

to seek meaning. The authors described the process of searching for meaning as dynamic

and that a deficit in meaning would activate this process. The individual would then strive

to discover the meaning of their life, and once found, the searching would reduce, though

remain present to some degree throughout life. The search for meaning is therefore seen as

a natural reaction to an absence of meaning, directed by a strong motivational drive to seek

it out, supporting Frankl (1959/2006) and Maddi (1970) understanding of the process

involved.

Researchers have focused on what aids the development of meaning in life, the benefits

of having meaning in life, and the negatives of not possessing meaning in life and more

recently the treatment of presence and searching for meaning in life as separate constructs,

but limited attention has been given to the exploration of any possible factors which may

moderator the negative effects of searching for meaning in life. The buffering effects of

presence of meaning in life on the negative relationship between searching for meaning in

life and subjective well-being have been raised, and explored (Steger et al. 2008a; Steger

Is Searching for Meaning in Life? 315

123

et al. in press; Park et al. 2010; Oishi and Kesebir in press). This new direction in research

raises many questions. If presence of meaning is low, are individuals happier when they

don’t search for meaning? Could this suggest that it is more beneficial not to search for

meaning? If meaning is reported, what factors may act as buffers against the distress which

arises when searching for meaning in life?

Meaning in life has been believed to develop from a variety of different sources.

Common themes which have been explored include goal achievement (Ryff and Singer

1998; Reker and Wong 1988); self-efficacy (Baumeister and Wilson 1996) and self-ac-

tualisation (Compton et al. 1996). If we accept that these sources contribute to the

development of meaning in life, could they act as possible moderators of the negative

effects of searching for meaning in life on subjective well-being? How might these

interactions occur? Steger et al. (2008a) speculates that the search for meaning in life

‘‘might be subsidiary to one’s perceived inability to achieve personal growth, exert control

over one’s environment, or develop firmly held beliefs and self-acceptance’’ (p. 201).

Based on the above theories, this research conducted an exploratory investigation into

whether any personal characteristics may act as moderators of the hypothesised reduced

subjective well-being which may arise when an individual searches for meaning in life.

The three elements identified as having significance to meaning in life were: self-actual-

isation (Fava and Ruini 2003; Lent 2004), goal directedness and pursuit of worthwhile

goals (Reker and Wong 1988; Ryff and Singer 1998), and self-efficacy (Bandura 1977;

Luszczynska et al. 2005a). Three theoretical frameworks related to these elements were

chosen: Self-Actualisation (Maslow 1968), Achievement Motivation (Atkinson 1966) and

Self-Efficacy (Bandura 1997).

Maslow’s theory of human motivation (1970) contends that man is motivated to satisfy

a range of needs. These needs are organised into a hierarchy, and as one level of needs is

met, then activity directed towards the fulfilment of these needs is reduced. With the

satisfaction of needs on one level, man can direct his activities to the next level within the

hierarchy. Maslow described motivation of this kind as a way to reduce a perceived

deficiency; except when striving for self-actualisation. Self-actualisation involves reaching

an optimal level of growth and development. As part of the process the individual strives to

maximize their potential through the pursuit of intrinsically motivated meaningful goals;

all the while displaying a confidence in their own ability to achieve these goals. This type

of striving is driven by the desire for growth, rather than the need to reduce deficiencies

and Maslow believed that this process encouraged the further development of human

potential. Maslow (1991) speculated that happiness was a possible by-product associated

with this desire.

According to Maslow’s theory, distress is often associated with the search for meaning

when an individual’s movement towards self-actualisation is blocked and growth does not

occur. If the individual is unable to resolve the advantages and disadvantages of growth-

fostering forces versus growth-discouraging forces, then self-actualisation may not be

achieved, resulting in feelings of distress. For growth to occur an individual needs to take a

chance on new experiences and resist focusing on the possibility of negative outcomes. The

individual must decides that, in the pursuit of growth, risks must be taken which outweigh

the safety of not moving forward. Psychological distress, such as depression and a sense of

meaninglessness, will develop unless ‘‘the person becomes aware that there is more to life

than reducing deficiencies, that is to say unless he becomes aware of his need for self-

actualisation’’ (Heylighen 1992, p. 41). If self-actualisation is achieved it is hypothesised

that the individual will be protected from the negative effects of searching for meaning in

life due to their ability to grow and strive for meaningfulness in life.


123

The pursuit and achievement of meaningful goals is commonly associated with the

attainment of meaning in life (Baumeister 1991; Reker 2000). For a goal to be meaningful

an individual applies their own value system and is then directed by their intrinsic moti-

vation to achieve their goal. Attainment of a meaningful goal may then contribute to an

individual’s well-being, including a sense of meaning in life. This process encompasses the

cognitive, motivational and affective elements (Reker and Wong 1988) of meaning in life

and correlates to Atkinson’s Achievement Motivation theory (1966). Atkinson stated that

achievement-related behaviour was determined by achievement motives, expectancies for

success and incentive values. This behaviour often reflects an individual’s desire to per-

form to a high standard which is internally decided upon.

Achievement motives relate to an individual’s quest to achieve success. They arise

when situational cues suggest that certain activities will help to achieve the particular goal.

Expectancies for success or failure are the cognitive thoughts that an individual experi-

ences when attempting to predict the consequences of their behaviour. Past experiences of

success and failure and subjective perceptions of success are considered by the individual

when weighing up their options. Incentive values represent ‘‘the relative attractiveness of a

specific goal that is offered in a situation’’ (Atkinson 1966, p. 12). For Atkinson, behaviour

is directed by three elements: the hope of success, the fear of failure, and the intrinsic

meaning and importance of the goal.

How can Atkinson’s theory explain any distress which may be associated with the

search for meaning in life? One possible answer might be that the distress is due to the

individual’s perception that their search for meaning in life is prolonged and unlikely to

succeed. Two factors may contribute to the long drawn-out search—the setting of very

high standards and the strong motivation to avoid failure. Slow progress and the fear of

failure may lead the individual to reflect upon their motives, chances of success and

incentive values resulting in existential frustration and psychological distress. Haugen and

Lund (2000) reported that individuals who did not achieve their desired goals were more

likely to place negative values on their performance. Individuals with high levels of

achievement motives are theorized to have the ability to sustain, and manage, the searching

for meaning in life process due to their belief in their ability to succeed based on past

successes.

The importance of goal setting, perseverance in attaining goals, and the reaction to

obstacles and failures encompassed in Atkinson’s model are also elements evident in

Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory (1977, 1997). This theory proposes that expectations of

self-efficacy determine what activities people will engage in, and how long they will

persevere in the face of adversity. Perceived self-efficacy is a person’s belief in their

capacity to perform in certain ways that gives them control over events that affect their

lives. Self-efficacy expectations equal convictions that one can successfully perform

behaviours required to produce a given outcome. As well as impacting on behaviour,

beliefs about self-efficacy also contribute to the regulation of emotional well-being

(Bandura et al. 1999).

Employing the principles of self-efficacy to the search for meaning in life the possible

reduced subjective well-being of individuals may be explained by the individual’s sense of

lack of control over their pursuit of meaning. Bandura (1982) stated that an ‘‘inability to

influence events and social conditions that significantly affect one’s life can give rise to

feelings of futility and despondency as well as to anxiety’’ (p. 140). Applying Bandura’s

premise to the search for meaning in life, one may argue that distress is the emotional

expression of an individual’s perception that they hold little control over the desired


123

outcome (finding meaning), that they misattribute their inability to find meaning, and that

they ruminate about this outcome.

Luszczynska et al. (2005) contend that self-efficacy leads to effective problem solving

and increased positive emotions. When a sense of low self-efficacy exists, negative

emotions and feeling of helplessness occur. Luszczynska et al. concluded that individuals

‘‘who are burdened with a belief of self-inefficacy suffer distress and negative emotions,

such as depression and anxiety’’ (p. 82). Low self-efficacy individuals confronted with

obstructions in their search for meaning in life may lack the necessary skills to negotiate

their way around the obstacle, also raising the potential for feelings of distress.

With such a wide interest in the field of meaning in life and the acknowledged

importance of this concept, Steger et al. (2006) stated that ‘‘it is surprising that the search

for meaning in life has been all but neglected’’ (p. 81). Limited attention appears to have

been directed towards understanding the process of searching for meaning in life and the

impacts that such a process may have on people.

This study believes that previous research has suggested that a possible negative rela-

tionship may exist between searching for meaning in life and subjective well-being and

that further exploration of any relationship would be beneficial. The authors hypothesised

that individuals who reported low presence of, and high search for, meaning in life would

record low happiness levels and show an increased likelihood of experiencing depressive

symptoms. Positive moderating affects of presence of meaning in life, self-actualisation,

achievement motives and self-efficacy on subjective well-being were anticipated and that

the control variables of age, gender, level of education, involvement in a religion, expe-

rience of a loss and involvement in a stable relationship were expected to show no sig-

nificant influence.

2 Method

2.1 Participants

A total of 500 participants from across Australia completed the research measures and the

sample consisted of 250 males and 250 females. The most common age category for the

participants was ‘up to 29’followed by ‘60?’; ‘30–39’; ‘40–49’ and finally ‘50–59’. Of our

sample 30.6% had fully completed high school; 22.6% had completed trade qualifications;

19% had partially completed high school; 18.4% had completed undergraduate study and

9.4% had completed postgraduate study.

2.2 Procedures

As this study explored meaning in life, attempts were made to collect a sample of Aus-

tralian residents across a wide age range. To gain access to such a sample, and to utilise the

internet for the data collection, Research Now, www.researchnow.com, an international

research company, was approached to upload the surveys, send them out to their panel

members and collect the data. Research now is a public company listed on the AIM market

of the London Stock Exchange. It provides on-line data collection to a variety of agencies

and individuals. The company uses the ‘‘Valued Opinions’’ family of on-line panels across

Australia and Europe, and comprising of over 900,000 members.

The panels are multi-sourced by utilising over 100 email partners, helping to avoid the

bias associated with limited source recruitment. Incentives are set at a low level, but are


123

http://www.researchnow.com

respectful of the panelist’s time spent, encouraging honest responses. Panelists are not over

contacted and are frequently refreshed. Rules exist to maintain the integrity of the panels.

These rules include: panelists can only be selected for one open survey at a time;

restrictions on total number of surveys taken exist and panelists cannot complete a survey

on the same subject within a 3 month period.

Research Now abides by ESOMAR (The World Association of Market Research Pro-

fessional), which is an industry of innovation and self regulation, established in 1948.

ESOMAR promotes the use of a code of practice that governs the way market research is

conducted. There are over 4,000 members worldwide who are committed to maintaining

high levels of ethical standards that are embodied in the ICC/ESOMAR Code of Marketing

and Social Research Practice. This Code has been adopted by more than 100 national

research associations and representatives from nearly 30 countries work together to

develop and improve this code. Research Now is also a member of the German and

American research associations.

2.3 Materials

2.3.1 Meaning in Life

The Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ; Steger et al. 2006) which consists of two, five-

item subscales was used to assess the presence of, and search for, meaning in life. Each

item was rated from 1 (Absolutely Untrue) to 7 (Absolutely True) giving a range of scores

from 7 to 35. The Presence subscale assesses an individual’s perception of how meaningful

their life is (e.g., ‘‘My life has a clear sense of purpose’’) and the Search subscale measures

an individual’s active search for meaning in life (‘‘I am always looking to find my life’s

purpose’’). Convergent and discriminant validity have been established (Steger et al. 2006;

Steger and Kashdan 2007) and the respective alpha coefficients for the Presence and

Search subscales were .88 and .90.

2.3.2 Depression/Happiness

The Depression Happiness Scale (DHS; McGreal and Joseph 1993) consists of twenty-five

items, thirteen addressing negative affect and twelve items which focus on positive affect.

Respondents are asked to think about how they have felt in the past 7 days (e.g., ‘‘I felt

dissatisfied with myself’’) and to rate the frequency of each item on a four-point scale:

never (0), rarely (1), sometimes (2), and often (3). Items concerning negative thoughts,

feelings and bodily experiences are reverse-scored so that respondents can score between 0

and 75, with higher scores indicating greater frequency of positive thoughts and feelings

and lower frequency of negative thoughts and feelings (Joseph and Lewis 1998). Lewis,

Joseph and Shelvin (1999) suggest that a score of 42 or less on the DHS suggests mild, but

clinically relevant depression.

Since the original development of the DHS researchers have used the scale to assess its

psychometric properties. Four separate research studies have established good internal

validity of the DHS, with Cronbach a’s ranging from 0.88 to 0.93 (Walsh, Joseph and

Lewis 1995; Lewis and Joseph 1995; Joseph et al. 1996; Joseph and Lewis 1998). Using a

variety of measures, such as the General Health Questionnaire (Goldberg and Williams

1988), the BDI, and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener 1984), these studies also

supported the convergent validity of the DHS. Test–retest stability of the DHS was


123

assessed by Lewis and McCollum (1999) in a study with 54 female university students over

a two-week period. Stability was found to be fairly high at r = .70.

2.3.3 Self Actualisation

The Short Index of Self Actualisation (SISA; Jones and Crandall 1986) was developed to

measure the concept of self-actualisation which Maslow believed represented psycholog-

ical health. The SISA was derived from Shostrom’s (1964) Personal Orientation Inventory

(POI) and Personal Orientation Dimension (POD) (Shostrom 1975). Jones and Crandall

(1986) stated that these popular measures were too long, and hence, precluded their use-

fulness in many research contexts. To address this issue, the authors constructed a short

index, consisting of 15 items, to measure self-actualization.

The items (e.g., ‘‘I do not feel responsible to help anybody’’) are scored on a four-point

response scale, ranging from agree to disagree. The self-actualizing responses scored four

points and the non self-actualizing responses scored one point, giving a range of scores

from 15 to 60. The higher the total score the more self-actualization reported by the

individual. Due to the complexity of the construct of self-actualization, and following the

advice from the authors of the SISA (Crandall and Jones 1991), a total score was used

instead of focusing on different factors in an attempt to provide an inclusive assessment of

self-actualization. Internal consistency was recorded as an alpha coefficient of .65 (332

subjects) and the index correlated significantly (r = .67; p \ .001) with Shostrom’s POI

and with self-esteem (r = .41, p \ .001). Sumerlin et al. (1994) supported Jones and

Crandall’s finding that the SISA is equivalent to the POI.

2.3.4 Achievement Motives

The Achievement Motives Scale (AMS: Gjesme and Nygard 1970) was based on the

motivational theories of McClelland et al. (1953) and has been one of the best established

and most frequently used scales in the field of achievement (Lang and Fries 2006). The

AMS was designed to measure situation-independent motive and reflects the two aspects of

motivation: approach and avoidance. To accurately reflect the two aspects of motivation

Gjesme and Nygard decided on separate and independent measures, Ma (motive to

approach success) and Mf (motive to avoid failure) and the situations in the scale were

general and not specifically related to school or other achievement situations (Christo-

phersen and Rand 1982).

The two subscales constructed contained 15 items that were designed to measure the

positive effects in achievement situations, and 15 items that were designed to measure the

negative effects in such situations. The positive items (e.g., ‘‘I like to strive with problems

that I am not sure I will be able to solve’’) refer to an individual’s hope of success and the

negative items (e.g., ‘‘Situations in which my abilities are tested make me feel worry’’)

refer to an individual’s fear, or avoidance, of failure. The first 15 items are totaled, as are

the last 15 items, to produce a score on the two aspects of achievement. Each item can be

rated from one to four, with the maximum score being 60 for each 15 items. A high score

on the first 15 items indicates that an individual has a strong motive to succeed and a high

score on the later 15 items indicates that an individual has a strong motive to avoid failure.

Factor analysis and the correlations between the subscales of the AMS show that they

measure different motives (Rand 1978; Christophersen and Rand 1982) and internal

consistency has been reported: Cronbach’s a: .71 to .83 for the success subscale and .81 to

.89 for the failure subscale (Lang and Fries 2006).


123

2.3.5 General Self Efficacy

The General Self Efficacy Scale (GSE; Schwarzer and Jerusalem 1995) was produced to

measure an individual’s sense of general self-efficacy in coping with daily hassles and

stressful events which may occur in life. General self-efficacy refers to a global confidence

in one’s coping ability across a wide range of demanding or difficult situations and reflects

a broad and stable confidence in dealing effectively with a range of stressful situations

(Rimm and Jerusalem 1999).

The GSE contains 10 items which are rated on a four point scale, ranging from 1 = not

at all true, 2 = hardly true, 3 = moderately true, and 4 = exactly true. Total scores can

vary between 10 and 40. A typical question is: ‘‘It is easy for me to stick to may aims and

accomplish my goals.’’ The higher the total score, the higher level of reported general self-

efficacy. The reliability of the GSE has been widely reported (Rimm and Jerusalem 1999;

Scholz et al. 2002; Tong and Song 2002; Luszczynska et al. 2005a, b) producing internal

consistencies between a = 0.75 and a = 0.91. These results have been tested in longitu-

dinal studies, reporting test–retest reliability of r = 0.67 after 6 months (Schroder et al.

1998). Cheung and Sun (1999) reported that the scale reflects the universal and unidi-

mensional aspects of self-efficacy.

2.3.6 General Background Questions

Demographic information including age, gender and education levels was obtained.

General background information questions asked if participants: were involved in a reli-

gion; whether they had experienced a significant loss and whether they were currently in a

stable relationship and these were treated as control variables.

3 Results

3.1 Descriptive Statistics

Mean scores were 24.4 (SD = 6.5) for the MLQ-P, 21.4 (SD = 7.4) for the MLQ-S, 47.5

(SD = 14.0) for the DHS, 43.5 (SD = 6.2) for the SISA, 34.5 (SD = 9.8) for the AMS

motive to success, 45.8 (SD = 10.8) for the AMS motive to failure and 30.9 (SD = 5.0)

for the GSE. The Pearson’s correlation between presence and search was negative (r =

-.32, n = 500, p \ .0005), therefore there is some support for suggesting that as presence

increases search decreases. All scales used in this analysis had high reliability: presence of,

a = .88, search for, a = .90 and depression/happiness score, a = .95, sisa, a = . 75, ams

success, a = . 94, ams failure, a = . 95 and gse, a = .92.

3.2 Relationships Between All the Control Variables, Presence, Search and Presence/

Search Interaction

All the control variables were fitted into a general linear model to test the significance of

the control variables as a block and to also test the significance of the presence, search and

the presence/search interaction. The control variables as a block were not significant F(13,

483) = 10.68, p = .470, but age (\ .0005) gender (.001), education (.029) and relationship

(\ .0005) were significant when treated as individual control variables. The relationship

between age, which was entered as a six-category variable was u-shaped with the lowest


123

happiness scores in the 30–39 group. The relationship between education, which was

entered as a five-category variable displayed, low happiness scores for individuals who had

completed some secondary school. Males were significantly happier than females and

individuals who reported being in a stable relationship were significantly happier than

those not in a relationship. This model explained 13% of the variance in depression/

happiness scores.

Simple main effects of presence of, and search for, meaning in life on depression

happiness scores were explored focusing on possible differences between ?1 SD and -1

SD of search for meaning in life with presence of meaning in life at ?1 SD. No significant

differences were found: ?1 SD search F(1, 483) = 29.22, p = 0.057 and -1 SD

F(1, 483) = 44.78, p = 0.085 indicating that holding presence of meaning in life negates

the detrimental effects of searching for meaning.

The main effects of presence of, and search for, meaning in life were found to be

significant when adjusting for the control variables and each other: presence

F(1, 483) = 362.72, p \ .0005 and search F(1, 483) = 55.14. p \ .0005. The direction of

the relationship was the same as for the bivarate analysis. Having presence of meaning in

life, and searching for meaning in life, both significantly predicted respondents’ depres-

sion/happiness scores. The interaction between the two variables was also significant

F(1, 483) = 5.79, p = .016. The nature of the relationship is shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 1 represents the interaction between presence of, and search for, meaning in life

and depression/happiness scores.

The lowest depression/happiness scores were for respondents with a combination of low

‘presence of’, and high ‘search for’, meaning in life while the highest depression/happiness

scores were for respondents with a combination of high ‘presence of’, and low ‘search for’,

meaning in life. Figure 1 also shows that the effect of searching for meaning in life on

depression/happiness scores reduced as the score for presence of meaning in life

increased—the differences in depression/happiness scores were much larger at the low

presence of meaning in life scores than at the high presence of meaning in life scores. As

the levels of presence increased, the difference between the three levels of searching for

reduced to smaller differences.

3.3 Interactional Relationships Between Control Variables, Theoretical Constructs,

Presence and Search

Correlations between the outcome variable (depression/happiness scores) and self-efficacy,

self-actualisation, success and failure are shown in Table 1.

Fig. 1 Interaction plot of presence of, search for meaning in life on depression/happiness scores


123

Depression/Happiness scores exhibited a positive relationship with presence of meaning

in life, indicating that as ‘presence of’ increases, so do Depression/Happiness scores. A

negative relationship between search for meaning in life and Depression/Happiness scores

indicated that as searching increases, Depression/Happiness scores decline. Depression/

happiness scores exhibit a positive relationship with general self efficacy, self-actualization

and motivation to succeed, indicating that as these variables increase, so do depression/

happiness scores. A negative relationship between motivation to avoid failure and

depression/happiness scores indicated that as an individual strives harder to avoid failure,

depression/happiness scores decline.

The previously tested model was expanded to include the interaction between each of

the control variables and theoretical constructs and each of presence of, and search for,

meaning in life. Testing all the interactions as a block was not significant F(8, 472) = 1.50,

p = .155. Testing the single interactions only one was found to be significant—self-

actualisation * search F(1, 471) = 7.95, p = .005. This interaction is shown in Fig. 2. This

interaction explained a substantial proportion of the variance in depression/happiness

scores. The inclusion of this interaction rendered the presence*search interaction non

significant F(1, 471) = 9.20, p = .115. This result was consistent with the finding that the

correlation between presence and self-actualisation was significant .508. The full model

explained 69% of the variance in depression/happiness scores.

Table 1 Correlation matrix for general self-efficacy, self-actualization, success, failure, presence, searchand depression/happiness scores (n = 500)

Scale/subscale DHST GSE SISA Success Failure

DHST

GSE .603*

SISA .645* .533

Success .272* .453 .240

Failure -.472* -.457 -.505 -.345

Search -.439* -.161 -.344 -.045 -.292

Presence .656* .468 .508 -.306 .320

* Significant at p \ .0005

Fig. 2 Interaction plot of self-actualisation, searching for meaning in life and depression/happiness scores


123

Simple main effects of self actualisation and search for meaning in life on depression

happiness scores were explored focusing on any possible differences between ?1 SD and

-1 SD of search for meaning in life with self actualisation at ?1 SD. No significant

differences were found: ?1 SD search F(1, 479) = 7.995, p = 0.016 and -1 SD F(1,

479) = 47.01, p = 0.089 indicating that possessing self actualisation negates the detri-

mental effects of searching for meaning. Testing the interactions as a block for search only

was found to be non significant F(4,475) = 1.750, p = 0.138.

Figure 2 represents the interaction self-actualisation, searching for meaning in life and

depression/happiness scores.

The interaction between self-actualisation and search was positive, indicating that the

higher the levels of self-actualization, the less distress was experienced when an individual

searched for meaning in life. Individuals with high levels of self-actualization registered

the highest scores of happiness over all levels of searching, whereas people with low levels

of self-actualization recorded the lowest happiness over all levels of searching. For indi-

viduals with high self-actualization going from low to high, searching makes little dif-

ference to happiness levels, whereas for people with low self-actualization going from low

to high, searching makes a significant difference to happiness levels. The lowest happiness

scores were for people with low self-actualization and high searching.

These results suggested that the self-actualization provided valuable information when

attempting to understand possible factors which may influence an individual’s depression/

happiness scores when searching for meaning in life. Self-Actualization has displayed

moderator effects on depression/happiness scores when searching for meaning in life,

which is not explained by any of the other variables.

4 Discussion

Previous theorists (Frankl 1959/2006; Maddi 1970; Steger et al. 2006) have speculated that

the process of searching for meaning in life may result in distress. This study supports

Steger et al. (2006, 2008a, b; Steger and Kashdan 2007) results and highlights the mod-

erating relationship of presence of meaning in life on searching for meaning in life. This

understanding is verified by the additional knowledge that an individual’s level of presence

of meaning in life is undoubtedly linked to happiness when the search for meaning in life is

present. Rather than treating meaning in life as a single construct, researchers are now able

to study the two separate elements, contributing to a broader understanding of the subject.

The results of the present study suggest that two factors, having presence of meaning in

life and high levels of self-actualisation, might diminish the distress that may arise when an

individual searches for meaning in life. Looking at the first factor, participants who

recorded low levels of presence of meaning in life, coupled with high levels of searching

for meaning, displayed the lowest scores on the DHS, suggesting clinical levels of

depression. In the majority of cases, as the levels of presence of meaning in life increased

and the search for meaning in life declined, happiness levels rose. These results support the

conclusions expressed by Steger et al. (2006, 2008a) Park et al. (2010) who affirmed that

presence of meaning in life was important for subjective well-being in those people who

were searching for meaning.

When presence of meaning in life is possessed and the searching process continued,

individuals appear to be protected from reduced subjective well-being. Presence of

meaning in life displayed a moderating relationship with searching possibly providing

individuals with a base of meaning which allowed them to continue their search without


123

finding the search upsetting. One could ask why do individuals search for meaning when

the report the existence of meaning? Steger et al. (2008a) speculated that such individuals

may be more concerned with deepening their understanding of life and that the process of

searching is not seen in a negative manner.

If an individual reports high levels of presence of meaning in life, is it reasonable to

infer that they would not be searching for meaning in life? Davis et al. (2000) argue that

individuals who have found meaning continue to pursue the issue, suggesting that the

search for meaning in life is ever present. This study supports this argument by presenting

evidence that shows individuals recorded high levels of both ‘presence of’, and ‘search

for’, meaning in life. For some individuals, it appears that they never cease searching for

meaning in life, and, according to this study, these individuals can also be happy. Rather

than the searching process causing distress, for these participants, it appeared to be a happy

experience. Such results then open the door for future research to examine the positive

aspects relating to the search for meaning in life.

Individuals who reported low levels of presence of meaning in life appeared to be

happier if they didn’t search for meaning. This raises the question of whether it is more

beneficial for these individuals not to search for meaning in life. Steger et al. (in press)

offers an affirmative answer to this question by stating that ‘‘individuals low in meaning in

life are better off if they are not actively searching for meaning in life, at least in the short

term’’ (p. 7). Does this mean that presence of meaning in life may never be achieved

because it is less distressful to not search for it? What are the possible outcomes for such

individuals if they have no meaning and don’t look for it?

For individuals in such a situation therapy could be directed towards identifying, and

increasing, current elements which contribute to the presence of meaning in life. By

increasing presence of meaning in life well-being levels may be augmented which then

might positively influence the individual’s judgements of their lives leading to new atti-

tudes and approaches to continuing the search of meaning. Alternatively people may

benefit from recognising their individual levels of how important meaning in life is for

them and to what degree they may search for meaning (Frankl 1959/2006; Maddi 1970).

With the acceptance of individual degrees of presence and search for meaning in life well-

being levels may be cushioned from any negative impacts which occur from holding low

levels of presence and search for meaning in life.

The second factor which displayed a moderating influence on subjective well-being

whilst controlling for all other variables was self-actualisation. Individuals who scored

highly on the self-actualisation scale were the happiest across all levels of searching for

meaning in life. Self-actualisation appears to act as a buffer against any negative experi-

ences that may arise as an individual searches for meaning in life. This may be partly

explained by the fact that the definition of self-actualisation is similar to that of meaning of

life, and that self-actualisation engages the individual in a manner similar to presence of

meaning.

Across all levels of searching, high self-actualisation appears to offer some safeguard

from possible negative consequences stemming from the search process. The results offer

further support to previous research (Maslow 1968; Ryan et al. 2008) that established links

between meaning in life, happiness and self-actualisation by including the process of

searching for meaning in life. Which aspect of the self-actualised individual provides this

protective factor? Maslow’s (1968, 1970) theory of self-actualisation details the many

qualities that are present in a self-actualised individual. The lack of unhappiness experi-

enced by such an individual may relate to their ability to accept themselves for who they


123

are, faults included. It may also be linked to their aptitude to problem solve, be flexible in

thinking, to pursue growth, be spontaneous and to live in the present.

Ryff (1995), and Ryff and Singer (1998), describe the state of well-being as the real-

isation of one’s true potential and that by achieving this goal, happiness is a by-product. As

an individual’s self-actualisation levels increase, happiness grows. For a self-actualised

individual, the search for meaning in life contributes to their sense of achievement and

hence, fosters an increase in their level of happiness. The positive outcome of increasing

levels of happiness may enable the individual to manage any subsequent psychological

distress. An interesting direction for future exploration would be whether self-actualisation

could be learnt or enhanced by specific interventions.

From a clinical perspective, knowledge that elucidates why individuals who are low on

self-actualisation levels find searching for meaning in life difficult, would be beneficial.

This information would allow clinicians to focus on specific aspects of the client’s con-

dition and tailor interventions to address these aspects. Jones and Crandall (1986) reported

that self-actualised individuals live in the present, with few regrets or guilt. Utilising this

information, a clinician could explore whether their client possessed these characteristics,

and if not, work with the client to enhance these attributes. Another aspect of the self-

actualised individual is their determination to achieve their intrinsic goals, and hence,

maximise their potential. If a client presents to the clinician in a state of distress and is low

on self-actualisation, the clinician could use their understanding of self-actualisation to

help their client clarify intrinsic goals and develop methods that would aid in the attain-

ment of these goals.

This study further explored the two hypotheses that the self-efficacy and achievement

motives would show a significantly positive moderating relationship with searching for

meaning in life and reduced subjective well-being. These hypotheses were not supported.

The results showed that no matter what level of self-efficacy or achievement motives were

held they displayed no significant moderating effects on subjective well-being levels when

searching for meaning in life. Possibly an individual’s beliefs in their ability to achieve

meaning in life by setting it as goal may not realistic and achievable hence not done.

Baumeister (1991) and Reker (2000) argue that the pursuit and achievement of chosen

goals leads to a sense of meaning in life. As goals are achieved, presence of meaning in life

is projected to increase, subjective well-being is enhanced, and the negative impacts of

searching are potentially reduced. Building on these ideas, King (2001), and Sheldon and

Kasser (2001) specify that the pursuit of intrinsic goals promotes happiness and the sense

of meaning in life. If pursuing meaning in life is considered an intrinsic goal, will the

achievement of this goal not increase presence of meaning?

A factor which may partly explain the lack of a significant correlation between

achievement motives, searching for meaning in life, and depression/happiness scores is

self-efficacy. Bandura and Locke (2003) cogitate that an individual needs to have a

resilient sense of self-efficacy to be able to persist in the achievement of their goals. This

speculation suggests a relationship exists between achievement motives and self-efficacy.

Accepting such a relationship, the results of this study may not clearly represent any

associations between these variables and the impacts on searching for meaning and

depression/happiness scores.

Luszczynska et al. (2005) state that a ‘‘prime factor for influencing behaviour is per-

ceived self-efficacy; that is, people’s beliefs in their capacities to perform a specific action

required to attain a desired outcome’’ (p. 439). Holding low levels of self-efficacy could be

expected to reduce an individual’s intentions to achieve a desired outcome and to set less

ambitious goals. Low self-efficacy levels have also been linked to childhood depression


123

(Bandura et al. 1999). Accepting these conjectures, it is interesting that self-efficacy did

not display a significant relationship to searching for meaning and depression/happiness

scores.

Possessing a perceived belief that finding meaning in life is too challenging or unat-

tainable, reflected in low self-efficacy levels, it is possible to anticipate that an individual in

this situation would record low presence of meaning in life and low levels of subjective

well-being. It is feasible that our participants did not consider finding meaning in life as a

goal to achieve rather it occurred through living life. Accepting this belief, our participants

may not then have questioned their levels of self-efficacy.

5 Limitations

This research study is not without its limitations and the results should be considered in

light of this. The use of self-report questionnaires in assessing participants’ experience of

the search for meaning in life may not provide a comprehensive account of what is

occurring. In-depth interviews with a smaller sample representing each age bracket may

have offered a more illuminating picture of the searching process and its impacts on levels

of happiness. This approach would encourage a more expanded response to questions

relating to this significant issue.

The statistical analysis utilised within this study was correlational and no causality can

be drawn from the results coupled with the lack of experimental manipulation of the

variables these factors greatly reduce the generalisability of these results. Relationships

between the variables were identified, but this study cannot state that because an individual

holds high levels of self-actualisation that they will be happy when searching for meaning

in life. This research could therefore operate as a starting point for further exploration and

clarification of the relationships that were exposed.

A further limitation of this study was the lack of cultural comparisons. The sample was

taken from a wide age range within the Australian population. Although the sample

consisted of almost equal numbers of males and females, participants from other countries

were not involved. It is possible that the concept of meaning in life may hold different

levels of importance within a diverse range of cultures and that the definition and

understanding of this concept may vary across societies (Constantine and Sue 2006; Steger

et al. 2008). These considerations may impact on the results, hence reducing the ability to

generalise our findings across a wider cultural spectrum.

6 Future Directions

Building on the results from this study future research may expand the current under-

standing of the complex construct of meaning in life by a more detailed examination of the

searching process. Steger and Kashdan (2007) concluded that ‘‘the search for meaning in

life appears to be remarkably stable’’ (p. 175). The authors speculate that one may infer

from this deduction that individuals who are searching for meaning in life are not par-

ticularly successful. Could an individual who is continually searching for meaning in life

be considered as having a ‘set’ level of searching? Myers (2000) discusses the possibility

that individuals possess specific levels of happiness that remain stable throughout their

lives. The same may apply to searching for meaning in life. Future research could attempt

to assess whether individuals maintain a stable level throughout their lives.


123

A different understanding of the search for meaning in life may be to explore the

possibility of whether an individual could develop an addiction to the search for meaning

in life. Frankl (1959/2006) speculated that an addiction could act as a substitute for

meaning when an individual lacks authentic meaning. It is feasible that when meaning in

life is insufficient and the individual commences the searching process, as time passes,

focus is directed towards the act of searching, providing a sense of direction for the

individual. As a result, subjective well-being may increase, working as a reinforcer for the

behaviour. Future research could explore whether this speculation has any validity and

utility within this research field.

Further exploration of the impact of presence of meaning in life and self-actualisation

levels on searching of meaning may expand the current knowledge base. The application of

a longitudinal study to follow the impacts of each of these constructs may provide a fuller

understanding of these moderators. An investigation into the direction and type of rela-

tionship that may exist between these two constructs could provide new information for

clinicians to use when designing intervention strategies for clients who are experiencing

existential issues.

7 Conclusion

The results of the present research indicate that self-actualisation levels and presence of

meaning in life display a moderating relationship with happiness when searching for

meaning in life occurs. The extent to which there is presence of meaning in life held by

an individual appears to act as a defence against feelings of psychological distress

experienced whilst searching for meaning in life. This knowledge can be translated into

practical application when counselling clients who are experiencing distress whilst

dealing with meaning in life issues. Utilising Steger et al. (2006) psychometric tool,

clinicians can accurately assess levels of both ‘presence of’, and ‘searching for’, meaning

in life. If presence is low, clinicians may explore ways in which their clients may

enhance their level of presence of meaning, resulting in a reduction in feelings of

distress.

Being able to identify the characteristics typical of the self-actualised individual may

provide a starting point for psychologists when developing intervention strategies. Once

the characteristics have been isolated, the psychologists can then focus on their enrichment,

increasing the psychological resources that are available to the client. Interventions may

also be directed towards the possible teaching of self-actualising skills such as self-

awareness and development, concentration and judgement (Maslow 1971).

This research has added to the scientific knowledge base relating to meaning in life and

subjective well-being. It has confirmed the importance of considering the two aspects of

meaning in life: ‘presence of’ and ‘searching for’; and has highlighted the protective

benefits of possessing meaning in life on levels of happiness when the searching process is

undertaken. It has also clarified the importance of self-actualisation levels on the rela-

tionship between searching and happiness. This knowledge can then be transformed into

practical applications to be used with clients, as well as stimulate further exploration of

these concepts.

Acknowledgment The author likes to acknowledge the assistance that Alan Taylor provided in finalisingthis article.


123

References

Aristotle (1955). The ethics of Aristotle: The Nicomachean ethics (J. Thomson, trans.) London: PenguinBooks.

Atkinson, J. W. (1966). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behaviour. In J. W. Atkinson & N.T. Feathers (Eds.), A theory of achievement motivation (pp. 327–370). New York: Wiley.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behaviour change. Psychological Review,84, 199–215.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147.Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88(1), 87–99.Bandura, A., Pastorelli, C., Barbaranelli, C., & Caprara, G. V. (1999). Self-efficacy pathways to childhood

depression. Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 76(2), 258–269.Battista, J., & Almond, R. (1973). The development of meaning in life. Psychiatry, 36, 409–427.Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meaning in life. New York: Guilford.Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2005). The pursuit of meaningfulness in life. In C. R. Synder & S. J. Lopez

(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 608–618). New York: Oxford University Press.Baumeister, R. F., & Wilson, B. (1996). Life stories and the four needs for meaning. Psychological Inquiry,

7(4), 322–377.Cheung, S., & Sun, S. (1999). Assessment of optimistic self-beliefs: Further validation of the Chinese

version of the general self-efficacy scale. Psychological Reports, 85(Pt. 2[Spec. Issue]), 1221–1224.Christophersen, K., & Rand, P. (1982). Factor structure of the achievement motives scale (AMS): Two

factors—two samples. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 26(1), 13–28.Compton, W. C., Smith, M. L., Cornish, K. A., & Qualls, D. L. (1996). Factor structure of mental health

measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 406–413.Constantine, M., & Sue, D. (2006). Factors contributing to optimal human functioning in people of colour in

the United States. The Counselling Psychologist, 34(2), 228–244.Crandall, R., & Jones, A. (1991). Issues in self-actualisation measurement. Journal of Social Behavior and

Personality, 6(5), 334–339.Davis, C., Wortman, C., Lehman, D., & Cohen Silver, R. (2000). Searching for meaning in loss: Are clinical

assumptions correct? Death Studies, 24, 497–540.Debats, D. L. (1999). Sources of meaning: An investigation of significant commitments in life. Journal of

Humanistic Psychology, 39(4), 30–57.Debats, D. L., Drost, J., & Hansen, P. (1995). Experiences of meaning in life: A combined qualitative and

quantitative approach. British Journal of Psychology, 86, 359–375.Debats, D. L., van der Lubbe, P. M., & Wezeman, F. R. (1993). On the psychometric properties of the life

regard index (LRI): A measure o f meaningful life. Personality and Individual Differences, 14,337–345.

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.Fava, G., & Ruini, C. (2003). Development and characteristics of a well-being enhancing psychotherapeutic

strategy: Well-being therapy. Journal of Behaviour Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 34, 45–63.Frankl, V. (1959/2006). Man’s search for meaning (5th Ed.). Boston: Beacon Press.Gjesme, T., & Nygard, R. (1970). Achievement-related motives: Theoretical considerations and construc-

tion of a measuring instrument. Unpublished report, University of Oslo, Olso.Goldberg, D., & Williams, P. (1988). A user’s guide to the general health questionnaire. London: NFER-

Nelson.Haugen, R., & Lund, T. (2000). Achievement motives, incentive values and attribution. Scandinavian

Journal of Educational Research, 44(4), 423–432.Heylighen, F. (1992). A cognitive-systemic reconstruction of Maslow’s theory of self-actualization.

Behavioral Science, 37, 39–57.Jones, A., & Crandall, R. (1986). Validation of a short index of self actualization. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 12(1), 63–73.Joseph, S., & Lewis, C. (1998). The depression-happiness scale: Reliability and validity of a bipolar self

report scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54(4), 537–544.Joseph, S., Lewis, C., & Olsen, C. (1996). Convergent validity of the depression-happiness scale with

measure of depression. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 52(5), 551–554.King, L. A. (2001). The hard road to the good life: The happy, mature person. Journal of Humanistic

Psychology, 41(1), 51–72.


123

King, L., Hicks, J., Krull, J., & Del Gaiso, A. (2006). Positive affect and the experience of meaning in life.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(1), 179–196.

King, L. A., & Napa, C. K. (1998). What makes a good life? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,75(1), 156–165.

Lang, J., & Fries, S. (2006). A revised 10-item version of the achievement motives scale. European Journalof Psychological Assessment, 22(3), 216–224.

Lent, R. W. (2004). Toward a unifying theoretical and practical perspective on well-being and psychosocialadjustment. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 51(4), 482–509.

Lewis, C., & Joseph, S. (1995). Convergent validity of the depression-happiness scale with measures ofhappiness and satisfaction with life. Psychological Reports, 76, 876–878.

Lewis, C., Joseph, S., & Shelvin, M. (1999). Preliminary normative data on the depression-happiness scalefor a mildly depressed group. North American Journal of Psychology, 1, 319–322.

Lewis, C., & McCollum, M. (1999). The depression-happiness scale: Test–retest data over two weeks.Psychological Reports, 85(3, Pt 1), 889–892.

Luszczynska, A., Guttierrez-Dona, B., & Schwarzer, R. (2005a). General self-efficacy in various domains ofhuman functioning: Evidence from five countries. International Journal of Psychology, 40(2), 80–89.

Luszczynska, A., Scholz, U., & Schwarzer, R. (2005b). The general self-efficacy scale: Multiculturalvalidation studies. The Journal of Psychology, 139(5), 439–457.

Maddi, S. R. (1970). The search for meaning. In M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation(pp. 137–186). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Maslow, A. H. (1968). Towards a psychology of being (2nd ed.). New York: Van Nostrand.Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.Maslow, A. H. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. Oxford, England: Viking.Maslow, A. H. (1991). The nature of happiness. Journal of Humanistic Education and Development, 29,

99–102.McClelland, D., Atkinson, J., Clark, R., & Lowell, E. (1953). The achievement motive. New York:

Appleton-Century-Crofts.McGreal, R., & Joseph, S. (1993). The depression-happiness scale. Psychological Reports, 73, 1279–1282.Myers, D. G. (2000). The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. American Psychologist, 55(1), 56–67.Park, N., Park, M., & Peterson, C. (2010). When is the search for meaning related to life satisfaction?

Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 2(1), 1–13.Rand, P. (1978). Some validation data for the achievement motives scale. Scandinavian Journal of Edu-

cational Research, 22, 155–171.Reker, G. T. (2000). Theoretical perspective, dimensions, and measurement of existential meaning.

In G. T. Reker & K. Chamberlain (Eds.), Exploring existential meaning: Optimizing human devel-opment across the life span (pp. 39–55). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Reker, G. T., & Wong, P. T. P. (1988). Aging as an individual process: Toward a theory of personalmeaning. In J. E. Birren & V. C. Bengston (Eds.), Emergent theories of aging (pp. 214–246). NewYork: Springer.

Rimm, H., & Jerusalem, M. (1999). Adaptation and validation of an Estonian version of the General Self-Efficacy Scale (ESES). Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 12, 329–345.

Robak, R. W., & Griffin, P. W. (2000). Purpose in life: What is its relationship to happiness, depression andgrieving. North American Journal of Psychology, 2(1), 113–120.

Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Living well: A self-determination theory perspective oneudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 139–170.

Ryff, C. D. (1995). Psychological well-being in adult life. Current Directions in Psychological Science,4(4), 99–104.

Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (1998). The contours of positive human health. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 1–28.Scannell, E. D., Allen, F. C. L., & Burton, J. (2002). Meaning in life and positive and negative well-being.

North American Journal of Psychiatry, 4(1), 93–112.Scholz, U., Gutierrez-Dona, B., Sud, S., & Schwarzer, R. (2002). Is general self-efficacy a universal

construct? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18(3), 242–251.Schroder, K., Schwarzer, R., & Konertz, W. (1998). Coping as a mediator in recovery from cardiac surgery.

Psychology and Health, 13, 83–97.Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, &

M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs(pp. 35–37). Windsor, UK: NELSON.

Shek, D. T. L. (1992). Meaning in life and psychological well-being: An empirical study using the Chineseversion of the purpose in life questionnaire. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 153(2), 185–200.


123

Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (2001). Getting older, getting better? Personal strivings and psychologicalmaturity across the life span. Developmental Psychology, 37(4), 491–501.

Shostrom, E. (1964). A test for the measurement of self-actualization. Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, 24, 207–218.

Shostrom, E. (1975). Personal orientation dimensions. San Deigo, CA: Edits/Educational and IndustrialTesting Service.

Steger, M., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The meaning in life questionnaire: Assessing thepresence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 53(1), 80–93.

Steger, M. F., & Kashdan, T. B. (2007). Stability and specificity of meaning in life and life satisfaction overone year. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 161–179.

Steger, M. F., Kashdan, T. B., Sullivan, B. A., & Lorentz, D. (2008a). Understanding the search for meaningin life: Personality, cognitive style, and the dynamic between seeking and experiencing meaning.Journal of Personality, 76(2), 199–228.

Steger, M. F., Kawabata, Y., Shimai, S., & Otake, K. (2008b). The meaningful life in Japan and the UnitedStates. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 660–678.

Steger, M. F., Mann, J. R., Michels, P., & Cooper, T. C. (2009). Meaning in life, anxiety, depression, andgeneral health among smoking cessation patients. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 67, 353–358.

Steger, M. F., Oishi, S., & Kesebir, S. (in press). Is life without meaning satisfying? The moderating role ofsearch for meaning in life in satisfaction with life satisfaction. Journal of Positive Psychology.

Sumerlin, J., Berretta, S., Privette, G., & Bundrick, C. (1994). Subjective biological self and self-actual-ization. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 1327–1337.

Tong, Y., & Song, S. (2002). A study of general self-efficacy and subjective well-being of low SES collegestudents in a Chinese University. College Student Journal, 38(4), 637–642.

Walsh, J., Joseph, S., & Lewis, C. (1995). Internal reliability and convergent validity of the depression-happiness scale with the general health questionnaire in an employed adult sample. PsychologicalReports, 76, 137–138.

Westerhof, G. J., Bohlmeijer, E. T., Van Beljouw, I. M. J., & Pot, A. M. (2010). Improvement in personalmeaning mediates the effects of a life review intervention on depressive symptoms in a randomizedcontrolled trial. The Gerontologist, 54(4), 541–549.

Yalom, I. D. (1980). Existential Psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books.Zika, S., & Chamberlain, K. (1987). Relation of hassles and personality to subjective well-being. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 155–162.Zika, S., & Chamberlain, K. (1992). On the relation between meaning in life and psychological well-being.

British Journal of Psychology, 83, 133–145.


123

is searching for meaning in life associated with reduced subjective well-being? confirmation and...

Documents