In recent years, scientific research in psychology has struggled to understand and clarify the concept of meaning in life (MIL; Cohen & Kairns, Reference Cohen and Cairns2012). In general, special attention has been directed toward the impact of having or not having MIL with respect to an individual’s existence (Cohen & Kairns, Reference Cohen and Cairns2012). In this regard, empirical research has uncovered several pieces of evidence showing that the presence of MIL has a positive impact on different aspects of human psychological and physical functioning, such as psychological well-being (Ho, Cheung, & Cheung, Reference Ho, Cheung and Cheung2010; Zika & Charbelaim, Reference Zika and Chamberlain1992), psychological health (Brassai, Piko, & Steger, Reference Brassai, Piko and Steger2011), drug-abuse prevention (Waisberg & Porter, Reference Waisberg and Porter1994), trauma recovery (Kashdan & Kane, Reference Kashdan and Kane2011), and prevention of depression and anxiety disorders in cancer patients (Vehling et al., Reference Vehling, Lehmann, Oechsle, Bokemeyer, Krüll, Koch and Mehnert2011), among others. Moreover, the lack of MIL has also proved to have negative consequences for human development. Studies have shown that the lack of MIL is generally related to neuroticism (Zika & Chamberlain, Reference Zika and Chamberlain1992), perceived stress (Bauer-Wu & Farran, Reference Bauer-Wu and Farran2005), negative affect (Debats, van der Lubbe, & Wezeman, Reference Debats, van der Lubbe and Wezeman1993), depression (Mascaro & Rosen, Reference Mascaro and Rosen2005), suicidal ideation (Edwards & Holden, Reference Edwards and Holden2001), drug addiction (Henrion, Reference Henrion2002), and other negative consequences.
Despite evidence suggesting that MIL is a positive marker of human functioning (Steger, Reference Steger and Lopez2009) several other questions have recently emerged. In 2006, for example, King, Hicks, Krull, and Del Graiso (Reference King, Hicks, Krull and Del Gaiso2006) evaluated the extent to which MIL predicts or is predicted by levels of positive affect. The results achieved through a set of six studies strongly suggested that the perception that life has meaning is derived from dispositional levels of positive affect (i.e., high levels of positive affect lead people to think more positively about their lives, including the notion that life is meaningful). These results offered important initial evidence that started to deconstruct the notion that MIL was a predictor of happiness throughout the lifespan, as was suggested by Reker, Wong and colleagues (Reker, Reference Reker, Reker and Chamberlain2000, Reker & Fry, Reference Reker and Fry2003; Reker, Peacock, & Wong, Reference Reker, Peacock and Wong1987; Reker & Wong, Reference Reker, Wong, Birren and Bengston1988; Wong, Reference Wong1989).
More recently, empirical evidence has also questioned other theoretical assumptions underpinning MIL, such as that an individual’s search for meaning is a positive indicator of personal motivational growth and that the lack of MIL is directly related to a crisis of meaning— i.e., existential crisis (Frankl, Reference Frankl1963; Reference Frankl1978). With regard to the first assumption (i.e., the search for meaning is a positive indicator of personal motivational growth), Steger, Frazier, Oishi, and Kaler (Reference Steger, Frazier, Oishi and Kaler2006) developed the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ) to evaluate both the levels of meaning in life and the levels of the search for meaning. Since their study was published, several other studies have shown that the search for meaning is positively related to negative outcomes of psychological functioning, such as fear, sadness, neuroticism and depression, and negatively correlated with indicators of psychological well-being (e.g., environmental mastery, relatedness, and self-acceptance; Steger et al., Reference Steger, Frazier, Oishi and Kaler2006). However, the search for meaning seems not to be completely negative. Steger, Oishi, & Kesebir (Reference Steger, Oishi and Kesebir2011), for example, found that the relation among MIL and life satisfaction was positively moderated by the levels of search for meaning (i.e., the higher the search for meaning, the higher the relation between MIL and life satisfaction). Other moderation studies have shown that the search for meaning associates positively with well-being for people who already have high levels of MIL (Cohen & Cairns, Reference Cohen and Cairns2012; Park, Park, & Peterson, Reference Park, Park and Peterson2010). When people already have high levels of MIL, they have a foundation that allows the search for further meaning to be a modification and expansion process. However, when people lack or have low levels of MIL, the search for meaning can be difficult and frustrating (Park et al., Reference Park, Park and Peterson2010). Those statements are similar to the conclusion drawn by Cohen and Cairns (Reference Cohen and Cairns2012), who also found that the negative relationship between the search for meaning and happiness is moderated by the levels of meaning in life and self-actualization.
Beyond the discussions of to what extent and in which circumstances the search for meaning can be considered a positive or negative factor, Schnell (Reference Schnell2010) has struggled to empirically evaluate another theoretical assumption held in the MIL literature: namely, that a lack of MIL directly leads to crisis of meaning (or in the logotherapeutic terms, existential vacuum or noogenic neurosis; Frankl, Reference Frankl1963; Frankl, Reference Frankl1978). The rationale proposed by Schnell (Reference Schnell2010) was the following: Assuming that a lack of MIL necessarily directs an individual to existential crisis implies that the crisis of meaning and meaningfulness are two opposite poles of a unique continuum (Schnell, Reference Schnell2010). By evaluating the instruments developed to assess MIL, Schnell (Reference Schnell2010) found that the main measures (e.g., the Purpose in Life Test [PIL], Crumbaugh & Maholick, Reference Crumbaugh and Maholick1964; the Sense of Coherence Scale [SOC], Antonovsky, Reference Antonovsky1993; and the Life Regard Index [LRI], Battista & Almond, Reference Battista and Almond1973) all used this rationale. All of these scales were created based on a one-dimensional perspective in which individuals’ low scores on MIL would reflect boredom, despair, and existential crisis (i.e., supposedly negative outcomes derived from the lack of MIL), whereas high scores would reflect meaningfulness (Schnell, Reference Schnell2010). This rationale has two main problems. Initially, these instruments have been criticized in the literature by the lack of discriminant validity, since they present strong overlap content with external variables (well-being and mental health indicators) that MIL is supposed to predict. Furthermore, if one can have scores varying from negative states (low scores) to positive states (high scores), it necessarily implies that low scores of MIL would reflect in existential crisis – what might not be true for everyone (Schnell, Reference Schnell2010).
Trying to evaluate the consistency or inconsistency of this last assumption – i.e., that crisis of meaning and meaningfulness may not be two distinct poles of a unique continuum, Schnell and colleagues (Schnell, Reference Schnell2009, Reference Schnell2010, Reference Schnell2011; Schnell & Becker, Reference Schnell and Becker2006, Reference Schnell and Becker2007) developed the Sources of Meaning and Meaning in Life Questionnaire (SoMe). The SoMe evaluates 26 different sources of meaning, as well as the levels of meaningfulness and crisis of meaning through two separate scales. In a series of studies, the authors showed that it was more psychometrically sound to evaluate meaningfulness and crisis of meaning as two different constructs instead of as a single dimension (Schnell, Reference Schnell2010, Reference Schnell2011; Schnell & Becker, Reference Schnell and Becker2007). These results directed Schnell (Reference Schnell2010) to further findings. If people can have different levels of both crisis of meaning and meaningfulness, it is also possible that one can find different categories of meaning in life, such as the following:
-
a) Meaningfulness: high meaningfulness and low crisis of meaning;
-
b) Crisis of meaning: low meaningfulness and high crisis of meaning;
-
c) Existential indifference: low meaningfulness and low crisis of meaning; and
-
d) Existential conflict: high meaningfulness and high crisis of meaning.
Empirically, these propositions have been corroborated. In a representative German sample (N = 603), 61% of participants were classified as experiencing meaningfulness, 35% as experiencing existential indifference, and 4% as having a crisis of meaning. Several psychological and sociodemographic differences emerged among the subjects with regard to the different categories (For more information, see Schnell, Reference Schnell2010).
In Brazil, a previous study (Damásio & Koller, Reference Damásio and Koller2014) using the same sample of this study, showed that the four categories of meaning as proposed by Schnell (Reference Schnell2010) held. From the total sample (N = 3.034), 80.7% were classified as experiencing meaningfulness (n = 2.450), 9.6% as being existentially indifferent (n = 292), 5.7% as having a crisis of meaning (n = 172), and 4.0% as experiencing existential conflict (n = 120). Among other results, it was found shown that the group experiencing meaningfulness presented higher levels of optimism, hope (agency and pathways), general self-efficacy, general self-esteem, subjective happiness and life satisfaction when compared to the other groups. In general, having a crisis of meaning yielded the worst results, with higher levels of pessimism and lower levels on all “positive” variables. The existentially indifferent and existential conflict groups presented very similar patterns of psychological functioning but differed in subjective well-being (life satisfaction and subjective happiness) and in self-esteem, such that existentially indifferent individuals presented higher scores than members of the existential conflict group (for more information, see Damásio & Koller, Reference Damásio and Koller2014).
Previous studies have provided evidence that, in some circumstances, the search for meaning can act as both a positive and negative psychological variable. Furthermore, it has been found that some people may present complex experiences of meaning (Damásio & Koller, Reference Damásio and Koller2014; Schnell, Reference Schnell2010). However, as far as we know, no studies have evaluated how the search for meaning relates to a crisis of meaning and with the different categories of meaning. Aiming to aggregate further knowledge in the MIL literature, this study had the following objectives:
-
a) To evaluate how the search for meaning is related to both the crisis of meaning and meaningfulness;
-
b) To evaluate if different levels of the search for meaning can moderate the relationships between categories of meaning and subjective well-being.
Method
Participants
The participants were 3,020 subjects (63.9% women) ranging in age from 18 to 91 (M = 33.90; SD = 15.01) years old from 22 Brazilian states. From the total, 59.9% were single, 27.3% were married, 6.1% were divorced, 5.2% were in stable relationship (e.g., dating, engaged, or living with a partner), and 1.5% were widowed. Participants were invited to participate in the study through different modalities. A total of 91.4% answered the questionnaires in a web-based platform, whereas the remaining 8.6% responded to the questionnaires in a paper-and-pencil form. Invitations were sent through different sources, such as personal and media invitations, recruitment within social and occupational institutions (especially for adults and the elderly), as well as the snowball technique (Patton, Reference Patton1990). The present research was approved by the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Research Ethics Committee (Institutional Review Board). All participants signed a free consent term before answering the questionnaires.
Instruments
Bio-sociodemographic questionnaire:
This instrument was developed to evaluate sociodemographic characteristics of the sample (e.g., gender, age, marital status, educational level, financial income, job satisfaction, religiosity/spirituality, presence or absence of chronic illness or special needs, etc.).
Sources of Meaning and the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (SoME)
(SoMe, Schnell & Becker, Reference Schnell and Becker2007; Brazilian version adapted by Damásio, Koller, & Schnell, Reference Damásio, Koller and Schnell2013): This instrument is a 151-item questionnaire (ranging from 0 – totally disagree to 5 – totally agree) that assesses 26 different sources of meaning, encompassed in five larger meaning dimensions (“vertical self-transcendence,” “horizontal self-transcendence,” “self-actualization,” “order,” and “well-being and relatedness”). The SoMe also evaluates levels of meaningfulness (e.g., “I lead a fulfilled life”) and crisis of meaning (e.g., “I feel pain from finding no purpose in my life”) through two different scales. Its scores range from 1 to 5. The expected bi-factorial solution of the meaningfulness and crisis of meaning factors exhibited excellent fit indexes: TLI = .98; CFI = .98; RMSEA = .075 (.070 – .081). The meaningfulness and crisis of meaning factors were negatively correlated (r = – .61; p < .001). Cronbach’ alpha for the meaningfulness and crisis of meaning subscales were .70 and .90, respectively.
Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ)
(Steger et al., Reference Steger, Frazier, Oishi and Kaler2006; Brazilian version adapted by Reference Damásio and KollerDamásio & Koller, in press): The MLQ is a 10-item instrument that encompasses two different constructs: the presence of meaning (MLQ-P; e.g., “My life has a clear sense of purpose”) and the search for meaning (MLQ-S; e.g., “I am seeking a purpose or mission for my life”). Each construct is evaluated through five items. In this study, only the search for meaning scale was employed. Its scores vary from 5 to 35. The goodness-of-fit indexes were as follows: CFI: .97; TLI = .95; RMSEA .149 (.130 – .168); SRMR = .058. Cronbach’s alpha was .85.
Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS)
(SHS, Lyubomirsky & Lepper, Reference Lyubomirsky and Lepper1999; Brazilian version adapted by Damásio, Zanon, & Koller, Reference Damásio, Zanon and Koller2014): The instrument is a 4-item Likert-type scale (ranging from 1 to 7 points, with different anchors) that assesses subjective happiness using a single-factor solution. The scores range from 4 to 28 with higher scores representing higher levels of subjective happiness. In this study, the SHS exhibited excellent goodness-of-fit indexes: CFI = 1.00; TLI =.99; RMSEA (90% CI) = .037 (.017 – .061); SRMR = .042. Cronbach’s alpha was .76.
Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS)
(SWLS, Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, Reference Diener, Emmons, Larsen and Griffin1985; Brazilian version adapted by Gouveia, Milfont, Fonseca, & Coelho, Reference Gouveia, Milfont, Fonseca and Coelho2009) The SWLS is a 5-item Likert-type scale (ranging from 1 – totally disagree to 5 – totally agree) that assesses satisfaction with life using a single-factor solution. The scores range from 5 to 25 with higher scores representing higher levels of subjective happiness. In this study, the SWLS exhibited excellent goodness-of-fit indexes: CFI = 1.00; TLI =.99; RMSEA (90% CI) = .034 (.021 – .049); SRMR = .011. Cronbach’s alpha was .86.
Data analysis
Initially, zero-order correlations were employed to examine the relationships among search for meaning, crisis of meaning, meaningfulness and subjective well-being (viz., subjective happiness and life satisfaction) variables. Then, an ANOVA evaluated how the levels of search for meaning varied across the different categories of meaning. Finally, it was investigated if the search for meaning could moderate the relationship among the categories of meaning and subjective well-being.
The four categories of meaning are described as follows:
-
a) Meaningfulness: High meaningfulness and low crisis of meaning;
-
b) Crisis of meaning: Low meaningfulness and high crisis of meaning;
-
c) Existential indifference: Low meaningfulness and low crisis of meaning;
-
d) Existential conflict: High meaningfulness and high crisis of meaning.
Participants were divided into high and low groups with respect to the mean of the rating scale (≤ 2.9 / ≥ 3, range 0–5; Schnell, Reference Schnell2010). The search for meaning variable supported divisions into three groups: –1 SD below the mean (group 1; low search); +/–1 SD around the mean (group 2; medium search); and +1 SD above the mean (group 3; high search).
Thus, a 4x3 Factorial MANCOVA was employed. The independent variables (factors) were the following: the categories of meaning (four levels) and the search for meaning (three levels). The dependent variables were subjective happiness and satisfaction with life. The covariates were age, gender, civil status, monthly income and educational level. For the MANCOVAs, bootstrapping procedures (1.000 re-samplings with a 99% confidence interval for the mean difference, ΔM) were employed to accord greater reliability to the results, to correct for the non-normal distribution of the sample and the difference in group sizes and to present 99% confidence intervals for the mean differences (Haukoos & Lewis, Reference Haukoos and Lewis2005). The effect sizes were calculated using eta-squared (η2). To correct for Type-I error associated with multiple comparisons, Bonferroni post-hoc tests were employed (Abdi, Reference Abdi and Salkind2007).
Results
As expected, meaningfulness correlated positively with both, satisfaction with life and subjective happiness, and negatively with crisis of meaning. Search for meaning showed negative correlations with both life satisfaction and subjective happiness and a positive correlation with the crisis of meaning variable. In terms of the coefficient of determination (r 2 ), the search for meaning and crisis of meaning showed 6.65% of shared variance. The highest correlations were found between subjective happiness and satisfaction with life (r = .66, r 2 = .44) and between subjective happiness and crisis of meaning (r = –.63, r 2 = .40) (See Table 1).
Zero-order Correlations among Different Meaning in Life Related Constructs and Subjective Well-Being Variables
Note: **p < .01; *p < .05
To provide greater detail to these results, a factorial MANCOVA was employed. From the total sample, 80.7% of participants were classified as experiencing meaningfulness (n = 2.450), 9.6% as being existentially indifferent (n = 292), 5.7% as having a crisis of meaning (n = 172), and 4.0% as having existential conflict (n = 120). Regarding the search for meaning, 17.5% were classified as exhibiting low search tendencies (group 1, n = 532), 27.0% as exhibiting medium search tendencies (group 2, n = 818), and 55.5% as exhibiting high search tendencies (group 3, n = 1684).
Regarding the differences in the search for meaning within the different categories of meaning, significant omnibus results were found, F(3, 3030) = 43.114, p < .001; η2 = .04, with significant effects among all comparisons (p < .001). The existential conflict group presented higher levels when compared to all other categories. The existential indifference group, in turn, presented lower levels when compared to all other categories. Finally, the individuals experiencing meaningfulness presented lower levels when compared to the crisis of meaning group members (See Table 2 for descriptive statistics).
Descriptive Statistics of Search for Meaning, Subjective Happiness and Life Satisfaction for Different Categories of Meaning
The results presented in this study and those previously found (Damásio & Koller, Reference Damásio and Koller2014) have shown that the search for meaning is related to the categories of meaning and that categories of meaning are also related to levels of subjective well-being (Damásio & Koller, Reference Damásio and Koller2014). Considering these results, we sought to examine to what extent the different levels of the search for meaning could moderate the relationships between categories of meaning and the constructs of subjective happiness and life satisfaction. Thus, the search for meaning scores were divided into three categories (low, medium and high search), and a factorial MANCOVA was implemented.
Significant omnibus results were found for both independent variables: categories of meaning, F(6, 5954) = 117.688, p < .001; η2 = .11, with observed power = 1.00, and search for meaning, F(4, 5954) = 4.232, p < .001; η2 = .001, with observed power = .928. With respect to the search for meaning, those individuals who presented higher levels of the search for meaning showed less life satisfaction and less subjective happiness when compared to those classified as exhibiting medium and low search for meaning (p ≤ .05). Further, when comparing the medium search for meaning (group 2) and the low search for meaning (group 1) participants, significant differences were found for subjective happiness (p ≤ .05) but not for life satisfaction (p = .24). Interaction effects (the categories of meaning vs. the search for meaning) were also found for subjective happiness, F(6, 3008) = 2.698, p ≤ .05; η2 = .004, with observed power = .80, but not for satisfaction with life, F(6, 3008) = .935, p = .47; η2 = .002, with observed power = .38. These results suggest that the levels of the search for meaning moderate the relationships among the categories of meaning and subjective happiness, although the effect sizes are low (See Table 3 for descriptive statistics).
Descriptive Statistics of Subjective Happiness for Different Categories of Meaning and Different Levels of Search for Meaning
Note: N = number of participants in each cell.
To further evaluate this result, subsequent ANOVAs were run for each level of the search for meaning. Our results showed that the levels of the search for meaning moderated some of the relationships among the levels of subjective happiness for the different categories of meaning (See Table 4). For those who exhibited low search for meaning, no significant differences in subjective happiness were found between the meaningfulness and existential conflict groups (p = 1.000). However, when comparing medium and high search for meaning levels, the meaningfulness group presented higher levels when compared to the existential conflict group (p < .001). This result highlights the fact that individuals who are in a state of existential conflict but are also only weakly searching for meaning exhibit the same levels of happiness as individuals in the meaningfulness group.
ANOVAs among Categories of Meaning and Subjective Happiness for Different Levels of Search for Meaning
The search for meaning also moderated the relationships between the crisis of meaning and existential conflict groups in relation to levels of subjective happiness. For those who presented medium levels of the search for meaning, no significant differences in the levels of subjective happiness were found between the crisis of meaning and existential conflict groups (p = .527), whereas for the other two groups (i.e., low search and high search), the existential conflict group presented lower levels of subjective happiness when compared to the crisis of meaning group (p < .0001). Similar results were found for the relationships between the existential conflict and existentially indifferent groups. When levels of the search for meaning were high, the existential conflict group presented lower levels of subjective happiness in comparison to the existentially indifferent group. This result, however, was not duplicated for those who were low or medium in the search for meaning (p = 1.00 and p = .482, respectively). Figure 1 presents a graphical illustration of all such variability.
Relations among Categories of Meaning and Subjective Happiness for Different Levels of Search for Meaning.
Discussion
Our findings included several important results. A new, although expected finding was presented: The search for meaning positively relates to the crisis of meaning. The relationship between search for meaning and crisis of meaning has never previously been tested in the empirical literature. In the theoretical domain, however, distinct different positions have been posited. Frankl (Reference Frankl1963), for example, argued that the search for meaning must be held constant because one’s perception of meaningfulness tends not to be fixed and unchangeable. According to this perspective, as life circumstances change (because of natural development or unexpected happenings) one must search for new structures of meaning in these different life stages. Other authors, however, have suggested that the search for meaning happens only when individuals’ needs are frustrated (Baumeister, Reference Baumeister1991; Kingler, Reference Klinger, Wong and Fry1998). According to Baumeister (Reference Baumeister1991), people search for meaning when they do not realize meaning in their lives or when they are facing stressful events (e.g., spousal death) that require new adjustments and re-elaborations of their existence through a search for new structures of meaning. Yet another approach (Reker, Reference Reker, Reker and Chamberlain2000) has suggested that both situations are possible: The search for meaning can be fostered either by a life-affirming or by a deficit-based perspective.
Curiously, meaningfulness and search for meaning tend to have no significant or, at most, very small correlations (Damásio & Koller, Reference Damásio and Koller2014; Park et al., Reference Park, Park and Peterson2010; Steger et al., Reference Steger, Frazier, Oishi and Kaler2006). This result suggests that, in fact, search for meaning seems not to depend on the levels of meaningfulness. However, we detected a positive correlation between search for meaning and crisis of meaning variables, which tend to suggest a deficit-based perspective of the search for meaning. Individuals experiencing crisis of meaning are those who are suffering from finding no meaning in their lives (Schnell, Reference Schnell2010). Thus, meaningfulness is an important piece of their existence, so they naturally search for it.
Although this result may seem logical at first glance, it raises another question: If an individual is experiencing crisis of meaning and is also searching for meaning, it means that the search for meaning has not yet reduced one’s levels of existential crisis. So, to what extent, and in what circumstances may the search for meaning, in fact, favor the meaning-making process and the existential crisis reduction? If the search for meaning is positively associated with crisis and tends to present very small or no significant correlations with meaningfulness, what, then, are the motivational bases of the search for meaning? Does crisis predict search for meaning, or does search for meaning predict crisis of meaning? Longitudinal studies are necessary to clarify these conundrums. More specifically, further studies are necessary to investigate the psychological consequences of a long-term search for meaning. It is important to note that this finding is in line with results presented by Steger, Kashdan, Sullivan, and Lorentz (Reference Steger, Kashdan, Sullivan and Lorentz2008) who also did not found support to the expectation that the search for meaning would help people to increase their levels of MIL.
Aiming to further our understanding of these results, we evaluated how the search for meaning interacts with different categories of meaning and subjective happiness and life satisfaction. Among all categories of meaning, the existential conflict group presented higher levels of search for meaning. This result was not expected. Rather, it was expected that the crisis of meaning (i.e., low meaningfulness and high crisis) group would present the highest scores, insofar as, by its very characteristics, this group might be considered the one with highest existential suffering.
The fact that the existential conflict group presented the highest levels of search for meaning suggests that being in such a complex existential state might be very uncomfortable in existential terms. The members of this group are those who experience high levels of crisis and also high levels of meaningfulness. According to Damásio and Koller (Reference Damásio and Koller2014), the existential conflict group may be composed by those who find meaningfulness in some areas of their lives but who are still struggling to find meaning in other areas. If this rationale is correct, it assists us in understanding the reason that this group presented the highest levels of search for meaning. However, an intriguing situation arises. Once that search for meaning seems not to be a positive predictor of meaningfulness (Cohen & Kairns, Reference Cohen and Cairns2012; Steger et al., Reference Steger, Frazier, Oishi and Kaler2006), and that the search for meaning also is positively related to the crisis of meaning, it is not known if the search for meaning will assist the individuals in this group to exit their existential conflict category. As stated by Park et al. (Reference Park, Park and Peterson2010), the search for what makes life meaningful can be uncomfortable and counter-productive, at least when judged by psychological indices of well-being. Thus, the development of physical and psychological health of this group is one of several lines of investigation worthy of further longitudinal evaluation.
Finally, aiming to evaluate to what extent different levels of search for meaning could moderate the associations between the categories of meaning and subjective well-being, a factorial MANCOVA and subsequent ANOVAs were employed. The results showed that the levels of the search for meaning moderated the associations between the categories of meaning and subjective happiness but not between these categories and life satisfaction. The meaningfulness and existential conflict groups presented the same levels of happiness when the search for meaning was low. However, this result is not trustworthy because only two subjects were grouped in the category of existential conflict with a low search for meaning. Although the moderation effect must be overlooked (due to the sample size of this category; n = 2), the descriptive result, in turn, highlights another important consideration: It seems very rare to find people in a state of existential conflict that is not simultaneously searching for meaning. This finding corroborates the assumptions previously mentioned that the experience of existential conflict may be a very uncomfortable existential state that individuals struggle to leave behind, most likely by searching for new structures of meaning. When the search for meaning had medium strength, the levels of subjective happiness for the crisis of meaning and for the existentially indifferent groups became similar. For low and high search for meaning, the former group presented lower levels when compared to the later. More than that the highest difference among these two categories appear when search for meaning is low. In these cases, people in crisis of meaning presented 11.476 points less on subjective happiness when compared to the existential conflict group.
For the existential conflict and existential indifference groups, differences on the levels of subjective happiness appear only when search for meaning is high (with the former presenting lower levels than the later). In low and middle search, their levels are equivalent. This result shows that the differences in subjective happiness among the existentially indifferent and those individuals experiencing existential conflict are exacerbated in high search for meaning states. More intriguing is the fact that when search for meaning increases, the levels of subjective happiness decreases for both group. However, existential conflict group seems to become unhappier with higher search for meaning when compared to the existential indifference group (See Table 3). This result seems plausible, if we consider that the existential indifference group is not suffering from the lack of meaning in life. So, the search for meaning might not be as important as it is for those included in the existential conflict group.
It is also important to note that our results showed that the search for meaning does not improve levels of subjective happiness in any case of existential state. Rather, the levels of subjective happiness tend to consistently decrease with the increase of search for meaning. Further studies are necessary to test these findings in further samples to verify whether they are replicable.
Throughout this study, several new findings were presented for the MIL literature. First, the associations between the search for meaning and crisis of meaning were presented. Further, we tried to elaborate upon these results by evaluating how the search for meaning relates to different categories of meaning and how the search for meaning might moderate the relationships of the categories of meaning with subjective well-being constructs.
The fact that the crisis of meaning and the search for meaning were positively correlated raises several questions regarding the function that the search for meaning plays on one´s existential life. Some research has supported the idea that the search for meaning is positively associated with well-being indicators in individuals who already have high levels of meaning in life (Brassai, Piko, & Steger, Reference Brassai, Piko and Steger2012; Cohen & Kairns, 2012; Park et al., Reference Park, Park and Peterson2010). In particular, Steger et al. (Reference Steger, Kashdan, Sullivan and Lorentz2008) have conducted an extensive evaluation of the personality factors and cognitive styles that contribute to the presence of meaning and search for meaningful relationships. Notwithstanding their efforts, many questions still remains unanswered. For example, in terms of longitudinal development, what are the outcomes that a stable search for meaning leads to? Does the search for meaning serve as an important indicator of the human meaning-making process? Or, does it assist individuals in reducing their levels of crisis of meaning? To answer these questions, longitudinal and experimental studies are necessary. By using such approaches, we will be able to better understand, for example, the causal direction between the positive relationship that exists between the crisis of meaning and the search for meaning.
It is also important to note that both meaningfulness and crisis of meaning showed only small correlations with the search for meaning. So, if these two existential states (crisis and meaningfulness) are so poorly associated with the search for meaning, what, in fact, predicts such a search? What are the motivational bases that make people start to “search for meaning”? Furthermore, what does the search for meaning really mean in terms of behavior (i.e., how people actually search for meaning)? Is it by trying to deeply think about his or her life? Is it trying to more deeply and frequently engage in important aspects of their lives (such as sources of meaning)? Is it trying to live new experiences, in a kind of true-self development? Last, is it possible to think about a pattern of behaviors linked to the search for meaning, or do these behaviors markedly change from individual to individual and across the life span? Although this line of questioning seems basic, such issues have not yet been discussed. Consequently, the results presented in this study raise many more questions than answers.
The MIL field is not even close being saturated by empirical research. Future studies are welcome to further evaluate the results presented in this study and to start answering all of the concerns raised above.
