What do we really measure when we measure meaning?

1. What do we really measurewhen we measuremeaning? Evgeny Osin

2. How do we measure meaning? • Life Regard Index (Battista & Almond, 1973) • Purpose In Life test (Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1981) • Sense of Coherence scale (Antonovsky, 1987) • Ryff’s Purpose scale (Ryff & Keyes, 1995) • Personal Meaning Profile (Wong, 1998) • Personal Meaning Index (Reker, 2003) • Sources of Meaning (Schnell & Becker, 2006) • Meaning in Life Questionnaire (Steger et al., 2006) • Life Engagement Test (Scheier et al., 2006)

3. Why are we not satisfied? • Early questionnaires are heavily criticized for confounding meaning and its absence with other variables: • PIL: depression, satisfaction with life; • SOC: zest/depression, boredom; • LRI: satisfaction with life, depression. • => In the newer questionnaires items are phrased more directly, in terms of meaning.

4. What do meaning scales really measure? • Emotional aspect: • ‘experience of meaningfulness’; • engagement into the process of life; • satisfaction with life (past, present, future); • Cognitive aspect: • understanding the meaning of one’s actual life; • understanding the purpose of life, having beliefs/values/framework that give meaning; • Volitional aspect / activity-related: • subjectively meaningful goals, strivings, projects, etc.; • performing activities that people consider meaningful.

5. “Direct” approach:  Do you have (feel) X? Newer questionnaires tend to use this approach. Somehow we never use it to measure IQ, and not even extroversion. Why do we use it to measure meaning? Can we use it to measure meaning? “Indirect” approach: Assumption: “If (when) people have (feel) X, they have (feel) Y, …”  Do you have (feel) Y? Older questionnaires used this approach, potentially sacrificing validity. Two measurement approaches X

6. “Direct” approach What IS meaning? Do you have meaning? Yes / No • Assumptions: • people have a common (implicit or explicit) conception of meaning; • they are able to assess their degree of having meaning. • Otherwise ‘pure’ meaning scales are ‘semantic artifacts’ (Kline, 1999). We have no scientific basis to assume that both hold true!

7. Where do we find the meaning? • Classical approach: meaning is something within the individual’s mind. • Non-classical approach: meaning is an emergent phenomenon, associated with the way a human being relates to the world. • Meanings are human possibilities for engaging with the world in different ways. • It is only by looking at the contexts of the world that an individual addresses in his/her activity that meaning can be found. • Within the mind, meaning is represented non-specifically, e.g., as happiness/depression or goal structure.

8. Possible empirical approaches • Create meaning measures that tap into the contexts of the world that the individual is engaged in, potentially resulting in meaning (i.e., PMP). • Generative experiment (Vygotsky), i.e. the Ultimate Meanings technique (Leontiev, 1992): • study the processes of meaning generation people use in different situations.

9. Thank you!