Engaging in personally meaningful activities is associated with meaning salience and psychological well-being

ABSTRACT

Engagement in personally meaningful activities is associated with greater well-being. However, most studies use cross-sectional or recall methods, and the researchers pre-determine which activities are ‘meaningful.’ This study examined an idiographic measure of meaningful activity participation in relation to well-being. Participants (N = 160; M age = 43.3 years; 77% female) rated the meaningfulness of 46 daily activities at baseline and reported their activities on eight random days over the next 4 weeks. Half the participants also completed measures of meaning salience and mood on the same days. All participants reported on psychological well-being at baseline and 4-week follow-up. Meaningful activity participation was positively associated with meaning salience and positive mood. Average engagement in meaningful activities over 8 days was positively associated with subjective vitality, life satisfaction, and purpose in life at follow-up. An idiographic measure of meaningful activity participation may further be understanding of the relationship between meaningful activity participation and well-being.

Abbreviations: ACT - Acceptance and Commitment Therapy; LET - Life Engagement Test; MALM - Meaningful Activity and Life Meaning; MAPA - Meaningful Activities Participation Assessment; PANAS - Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; PHQ-8 - Patient Health Questionnaire-8; SDT - Self-determination Theory; SVS - Subjective Vitality Scale; SWLS - Satisfaction with Life Scale; TOMS - Thoughts of Meaning Scale

KEYWORDS:

• Meaning in life
• daily activities
• values
• well-being
• idiographic assessment

The drive to find meaning has been cited as the most powerful drive that a human being possesses (Frankl, 1969), and most people do find some meaning in their lives (Heintzelman & King, 2014). People who experience meaning also experience greater well-being (Van Der Heyden, Dezutter, & Beyers, 2015). However, the question remains regarding how people access their personal sense of meaning in life in their day-to-day lives. For example, little is known about the extent to which people engage in activities that they find to be personally meaningful or how often they are aware of meaning throughout the day. One possible way that individuals experience meaning is through engagement in personally meaningful activities. Indeed, a growing evidence base suggests that having a strong sense of personal meaning in daily activities can imbue one’s life with a sense of meaning and foster health and well-being (e.g., Eakman, Carlson, & Clark, 2010). The current study sought to provide a more nuanced and idiographic investigation of the ways in which meaning operates in daily life in relation to well-being.

Theoretical underpinnings of meaningful activity research

Meaningful activity is largely viewed as encompassing several dimensions of subjective experience, such as pleasure and enjoyment, purposeful behavior, and basic human needs fulfillment through choice, control, and belonging (Eakman, 2013). Similarly, there are a number of conceptualizations of what constitutes ‘meaningful activity,’ and each has its own theoretical underpinnings. Although an exhaustive review of these conceptualizations and their theoretical foundations is beyond the scope of this article, much of the literature on meaningful activity finds roots in Self-Determination Theory (SDT). From the SDT perspective, the meaningful activity provides a means for individuals to fulfill their potential, which fosters well-being. Specifically, well-being is attained through the fulfillment of the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, which leads to internally motived action (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Recently, Hadden and Smith (2019) supported the proposition that meaning in life (specifically daily meaning in life) may be considered a fourth basic psychological need that complements the SDT basic needs. It has been proposed that the relationship between meaningful activity and well-being is mediated by fulfillment of these basic psychological needs, which may be a function of reflection, interpretation, or meaning-making (Bauer, King, & Steger, 2019). Thus, meaningful activity supports the meeting of basic psychological needs which then contributes to greater well-being (Steger, Kashdan, & Oishi, 2008). This hypothesized relationship between meaningful activity, basic psychological needs fulfillment, and meaning in life is the basis for the Meaningful Activity and Life Meaning (MALM) model, which is founded on the principles of SDT (Eakman, 2013). Specifically, the MALM model suggests that engaging in meaningful activity provides the basis for which people appraise whether their basic psychological needs are being met, and if those needs are met, then they experience greater well-being. Although additional meaningful activity theory testing is warranted, preliminary evidence from a prospective longitudinal study supports the MALM model (Eakman, 2014).

Meaning salience and meaningful activity

Hooker, Masters, and Park (2018) recently introduced the concept of ‘meaning salience’ (i.e., the degree to which individuals are aware of what makes their lives meaningful at any given moment) as a potentially important construct linking meaning in life to health and well-being outcomes. It is possible that greater meaning salience could result in more consistent engagement in meaningful activity. This is important provided the evidence that suggests that stability in daily meaning can influence psychological well-being. Using experience sampling methodologies, Steger and Kashdan (2013) found that stability of daily presence of meaning is an important predictor of meaning in life, relationship satisfaction, well-being, and other psychological health outcomes. It is likely that more frequent awareness of personal meaning in life throughout the day (i.e., meaning salience) will result in greater stability of daily meaning. If so, investigating the relationship between meaning salience, meaningful activity, and health and well-being outcomes could be a promising avenue for future research.

Meaningful activity and well-being

Researchers conceptualize meaningful activity in several ways, including eudaimonic activities, ‘valued activities’ (i.e., activities that are personally valued and meaningful), and meaningful activity.

Eudaimonic activity

Eudaimonic activities are frequently conceptualized as activities that individuals do ‘to fulfill their potential’ (Steger et al., 2008, p. 23). Compared to views purporting that well-being is fostered as a result of simply ‘feeling good,’ eudaimonic theories of well-being emphasize the importance of engaging in inherently meaningful behaviors and deemphasize the importance of pure hedonic pursuits. Eudaimonic theories posit that activities contribute to well-being if they support individuals’ pursuit of fulfilling their potentials (Steger et al., 2008). Indeed, in a daily diary study assessing the relationships between hedonic activity, eudaimonic activity, and well-being, Steger and colleagues (2008) found that eudaimonic behaviors consistently had stronger relations to well-being than hedonic behaviors. Moreover, the study established a temporal sequence in which eudaimonic behaviors were related to greater well-being the next day. This study provides evidence that engaging in meaningful pursuits, as opposed to purely pleasurable pursuits, promotes greater well-being over a sustained period of time. However, there is emerging evidence that both hedonic and eudaimonic behaviors are able to be experienced in a simultaneous and complementary manner. In fact, the combination of both pleasure and meaning that may contribute to the greatest degree of well-being (Grimm, Kemp, & Jose, 2015).

Valued activity

The terms ‘valued activity’ and ‘meaningful activity’ are frequently interchanged in the literature. However, the meaning is often considered to be a component of valued activity; it is the meaningfulness of the activity that makes it valued (e.g., Lal et al., 2013). Studies indicate that greater engagement in valued activities promotes greater well-being across a variety of populations, including people with psychosis (Lal et al., 2013), caregivers (Jellema, Wijnen, Steultjens, Nijhuis-van der Sanden, & van der Sande, 2018), and adults with arthritis (Janke, Jones, Payne, & Son, 2012).

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) has embraced the idea of engaging in valued activities and encourages patients to engage in committed action (values-based activities) to live ‘a life worth having’ (Luoma, Hayes, & Walser, 2007, p. 162). ACT, as a whole, is an evidence-based treatment for reducing anxiety and depression and increasing quality of life in patients with mental health disorders or chronic pain (Hughes, Clark, Colclough, Dale, & McMillan, 2017; Ruiz, 2012). However, committed action is only one component of ACT, and little research has explored the specific effect of committed action on well-being. One study demonstrated that patients in an ACT-based residential chronic pain treatment program who engaged in more committed action reported less disability (Vowles, Fink, & Cohen, 2014).

Meaningful activity

A variety of studies established a relationship between greater engagement in meaningful activity and well-being, through which activities are deemed ‘meaningful’ may be pre-determined by the researcher or by study participants. Eakman et al. (2010) use an idiographic approach to assessing meaningful activity and provide evidence that higher engagement in meaningful activity is associated with greater well-being in a variety of populations, such as older adults (Eakman et al., 2010), veterans (Eakman, Kinney, & Reinhardt, 2019), homeless individuals (Marshall et al., 2019), and undergraduate students (Eakman, 2014; Machell, Kashdan, Short, & Nezlek, 2015; Steger & Kashdan, 2013). Greater engagement in meaningful activity is also a predictor of greater well-being in a variety of patients with chronic illnesses, such as individuals with acute myeloid leukemia (Deckert et al., 2018), dementia (Han, Radel, McDowd, & Sabata, 2016), or Alzheimer’s disease (Bohn, Kwong See, & Fung, 2018).

Idiographic approach to measuring meaningful activity

Although there has been a growing body of evidence indicating that engagement in meaningful activities may significantly predict health and well-being, there remain important methodological limitations in the literature. For example, research indicates that the daily activities that are found to be important, meaningful, or leisurely vary across gender and age groups (Brajša-Žganec, Merkaš, & Šverko, 2011). Moreover, even within these groups, there are individual differences in what constitutes activity as ‘meaningful.’ Qualitative analyses reveal that though there is some agreement regarding what constitutes activity as meaningful, there remains significant variability among individuals (Kubina, Dubouloz, Davis, Kessler, & Egan, 2013). Nevertheless, most measures of meaningful activity are constructed using a nomothetic approach, in which researchers pre-determine which activities are meaningful rather than allowing for individualized determination of which activities are personally meaningful to each participant (e.g., Steger et al., 2008).

Additionally, despite evidence suggesting that recall effects may influence findings (e.g., Zuzanek & Zuzanek, 2015), most studies have relied on cross-sectional methods assessing past events. Though an important empirical foundation has been established, the use of longitudinal designs and idiographic approaches measuring meaningful activity will lead to a stronger research literature. These approaches are likely to provide more accurate estimates of the relations between engagement in personally meaningful activity and other important constructs and may be better positioned to elucidate the underlying mechanisms responsible for these relationships. Personalized assessment of the meaningfulness of activity may enhance measurement precision.

The present study

The present study aims to explore the relationships between meaningful activity and well-being using a longitudinal and idiographic approach. Specifically, we examine the relationships among daily engagement in meaningful activity and various indicators of well-being, including mood, vitality, life satisfaction, meaning in life, purpose in life, and meaning salience. Meaningful activity is assessed using an idiographic assessment. It was hypothesized that engaging in more meaningful activity would be associated with greater meaning salience and positive mood on the same day. It was also hypothesized that engagement in meaningful activities over the 4-week study would be associated with greater well-being at follow-up, including greater life satisfaction, vitality, meaning in life, purpose in life, and fewer depressive symptoms.

Method

Participants

Participants (N = 160; see Table 1 for demographics; information about the self-monitoring condition is provided in the procedure section) were recruited to participate in a larger, longitudinal study of meaning and physical activity (Hooker & Masters, 2018). Inclusion criteria were specific to this larger study. Eligible participants were: (a) ≥30 years old, (b) physically inactive for the previous 6 months, and (c) joining a university-based fitness center with the intention to increase physical activity. Individuals with existing diagnoses of cardiovascular disease or other physical contraindications to engaging in physical activity were excluded. Participants were primarily recruited through the fitness center; they were sent an email within a week after joining the fitness center describing the study and inviting them to participate. Participants were also recruited through flyers around the campus, a posting of the study on the university research participation sites, and word of mouth. The sample was predominantly female, white, employed, and educated.

Table 1. Sample description.

Variable	All (N = 160) n (%)	Self-Monitoring Group (n = 80) n (%)
Age (M, SD)	43.3, 11.4	43.4, 10.7
Female	123 (76.9)	62 (77.5)
White, non-Hispanic	118 (73.8)	57 (71.3)
Currently married	82 (51.6)	32 (40.5)
Employed full-time	129 (80.6)	62 (77.5)
Education: ≥4 year college degree	140 (87.5)	56 (70.0)
Income: ≥$40,000/year	135 (84.3)	71 (88.8)

Procedure

The study was reviewed and approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board. Interested individuals completed a telephone screening, and eligible individuals were invited to participate. At baseline, all participants signed informed consent forms and completed study measures. A goal of the larger study was to determine whether self-monitoring significantly impacted perceived meaning in life and engagement in physical activity compared to no self-monitoring. After completing baseline, participants were randomized 1:1 to either a self-monitoring condition or a control condition. For the purpose of this study, the important difference is that participants in the self-monitoring condition completed daily surveys of meaning salience, positive mood, and physical activity for 4 weeks (28 days total) whereas those in the control condition did not rate their meaning salience or mood. Participants in both conditions recalled their activities for the last 24 hours on eight random days over the same 4 weeks. For the 24-hour recalls, all participants were randomized to receive one survey on a weekend day (Saturday or Sunday) and one survey on a weekday (Monday – Friday) for each of the 4 weeks through a blocked randomization schedule. At the end of the 4 weeks, all participants were sent another survey repeating the same baseline measures (with the exception of demographics and meaningful activities).

Surveys were sent via email at 8:00 PM using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at the University of Colorado Denver (Harris et al., 2009). REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) is a secure, web-based application designed to support data capture for research studies, providing: (a) an intuitive interface for validated data entry; (b) audit trails for tracking data manipulation and export procedures; (c) automated export procedures for seamless data downloads to common statistical packages; and (d) procedures for importing data from external sources.

Measures

Meaningful activities checklist

The Meaningful Activities Checklist is a measure of the meaningfulness of 46 daily activities that was completed at baseline by all participants. Twenty-eight of the activities are included in the Meaningful Activities Participation Assessment (MAPA) (Eakman et al., 2010). The remaining activities were added to try to comprehensively account for ways people spend their time, such as, but not limited to, sleeping, cleaning, taking care of children or family members, spending time in nature, or talking or texting on the phone. At baseline, participants rated the meaningfulness of the 46 daily activities on a scale from 0 (not at all meaningful) to 4 (extremely meaningful).

24-hour activity recall

A 24-hour recall of activities was delivered to all participants on eight random days over the 4 weeks. Participants were asked to recall their activities from a list of the same 46 common activities found on the meaningful activities checklist (e.g., sleeping, driving, working, eating, etc.) for every half-hour period over the previous 24 hours (from 8:00 p.m. the night before to 7:30 p.m. the night the survey was delivered). Participants could report up to two activities for each half-hour period. There were also two ‘other’ categories that participants could specify if they were engaging in an activity that was not on the list. Meaningful activity participation was calculated by assigning the meaningfulness rating that participants gave at baseline to each of the 46 activities to each activity they reported engaging in during the past 24 hours. If participants reported engaging in two activities during the same half-hour period, the meaningful activities score was averaged for the time period. The total score of meaningful activities over each 24 hour period was calculated by averaging the meaningfulness of each activity across the 48 half-hour time slots; the possible range on this measure is 0–4, with higher scores corresponding to greater meaningfulness of one’s activities over the course of the day. This daily score was used in multilevel models. In the regression models, the average meaningful activities participation score over the 8 days of measurement was used as the primary predictor variable.

All participants completed the following measures at baseline and the end of 4 weeks:

Meaning in life

The 5-item Presence subscale of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (Steger, Frazier, Oishi, & Kaler, 2006) measures the extent to which persons perceive their lives as meaningful (e.g., ‘My life has a clear sense of purpose’). Participants rate the extent each statement is true for them on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (absolutely untrue) to 7 (absolutely true). Responses are summed for a total score, with higher scores corresponding to greater meaning (possible range = 5–35). The presence subscale has been shown to be positively associated with health and well-being indicators (e.g., life satisfaction, joy) and negatively associated with depressive symptoms and negative emotionality (Steger et al., 2006). In this study, the internal consistency at both time points was very high (αs = .92 and .94), and the test–retest reliability was moderate (r = .73).

Purpose in life

The 6-item Life Engagement Test (LET; Scheier et al., 2006) measures purpose in life and the extent to which individuals believe their activities are valuable and important (e.g., ‘To me, the things I do are all worthwhile.’). Participants rate the extent to which they agree with each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Odd items are reverse-scored and the six items are summed for a total score, with higher scores corresponding to a greater purpose in life (possible range = 6–30). The LET has been positively associated with well-being and negatively associated with depressive symptoms (Scheier et al., 2006). In this study, the internal consistency at both times points was high to very high (αs = .85 and .93), and the test–retest reliability was moderate (r = .74).

Subjective vitality

The 7-item Subjective Vitality Scale (SVS) measures feeling active, alive, enthusiastic, and energetic (e.g., ‘I feel alive and vital’). Participants rate the extent they generally feel this way on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (very true). Item 2 (‘I don’t feel very energetic’) was dropped resulting in a 6-item scale (per author instructions and confirmatory factor analysis results, see Bostic, Rubio, & Hood, 2000) and the remaining items were summed for a total SVS score, with higher scores corresponding to greater vitality (possible range = 6–42). Previous psychometric studies demonstrate that the SVS correlates positively with other measures of well-being (e.g., self-esteem, self-actualization, satisfaction anxiety, psychopathology) (Ryan & Frederick, 1997). The internal consistency of the SVS at both time points in this study was very high (αs = .88 and .91), and the test–retest reliability was moderate (r = .73).

Life satisfaction

On the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), participants rate their agreement with five statements on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Responses are summed so that higher scores correspond with greater satisfaction with life (possible range of 5–35). The SWLS has been shown to be positively correlated with other well-being measures and interviewers’ ratings of a person’s life satisfaction and negatively correlated with personality psychopathology (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). In the current study, the scale demonstrated high internal consistency at both time points (αs = .90) and moderate test–retest reliability (r = .73).

Depressive symptoms

The 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire-8 (PHQ-8; Kroenke & Spitzer, 2002) measures depressive symptoms. Participants rate the extent to which they are bothered by a series of eight problems (e.g., ‘little interest or pleasure in doing things’) over the past 2 weeks on a scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day). Higher scores (possible range of 0–24) correspond to greater depressive symptoms. The PHQ-8 omits the ninth item from the PHQ-9 assessing suicidal ideation per recommendations from the authors because this study: (a) used self-administered surveys; and (b) depression was assessed as a secondary measure (Kroenke & Spitzer, 2002). Higher scores on the PHQ are related to a greater likelihood of being diagnosed with any depressive disorder (Kroenke & Spitzer, 2002). The internal consistency of the PHQ-8 was high at both time points in this study (αs = .85).

Only participants in the self-monitoring condition completed the following measures on the same 8 days as the 24-hour recall:

Mood

The positive and negative mood scale has been previously used in a study of daily meaning and mood (Steger et al., 2008). Eight items measure positive mood (relaxed, proud, excited, appreciative, enthusiastic, happy, satisfied, and curious) and five items measure negative mood (sluggish, afraid, sad, anxious, and angry). Participants rate the extent to which they felt various moods using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely). Sums of the positive and negative mood scales have been shown to positively correlate with their respective scales on the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). In this study, the internal consistency was very high for positive mood (αs = .86-.94) and acceptable to high for negative mood (αs = .70-.86).

Meaning salience

The 10-item Thoughts of Meaning Scale (TOMS) measures meaning salience and was developed for this study. Participants rate the extent to which they thought about meaning and purpose that day (e.g., ‘How much have you thought about your purpose in life today?’) completing these items using Likert-type rating scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (absolutely or quite a bit). The internal consistency over the 8 days was very high (αs = .88-.96).

Data analysis

Analyses were conducted using SAS v. 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc., 2015). Daily meaningful activity participation was investigated in relation to daily meaning salience, positive mood, and negative mood. Multilevel linear models with demographics (age, sex [1 = female, 0 = male], race [1 = white, 0 = non-white], marital status [1 = married, 0 = not married], employment status [1 = employed full time, 0 = not employed full time], income [1 = make ≥$40,000 annually, 0 = make <$40,000 annually], and education [1 = bachelor’s degree or higher, 0 = some college or less]), and meaningful activity participation as predictors were used to examine the associations between meaningful activity participation and same-day meaning salience, positive mood, and negative mood. The between-subjects effect was individuals’ average of meaningful activity participation over the 8 days. The within-subjects effect was the deviation from individuals’ average on each day. Multi-level models with compound symmetry covariance structures controlled for repeated measures within subjects to ensure that standard errors were appropriately estimated and Type 1 error rates were not inflated. Standardized regression coefficients were calculated by transforming continuous variables to z-scores and re-running analyses with standardized independent and dependent variables. Models were examined with and without time (day) as a linear covariate to control for a time trend that might artificially increase the associations; there were no differences in estimates between the models. For simplicity, models without time as a covariate are reported.

Bivariate associations between meaningful activity participation and well-being at baseline and 4-weeks were examined using Pearson product-moment correlations. Regression models were used to predict well-being (presence of meaning, purpose in life, life satisfaction, vitality, and depressive symptoms), at 4 weeks using meaningful activity participation score, controlling for age, sex, race, marital status, employment status, and income. Regression models did not control for baseline well-being levels as we did not expect that engagement in meaningful activities would predict a change in well-being, because participants were not encouraged to change their habits or increase engagement in meaningful activities.

Results

With 160 participants who received eight 24-hour activity recall surveys, there were 1280 possible surveys distributed. Of these, 964 (75%) were completed. Each participant completed a median of 7 of the 8 surveys, with a range of 0 to 8 surveys completed (5 participants did not complete any daily surveys). Eighty-eight percent (n = 140) of participants completed the 4-week follow-up survey. All available data were included in the analyses. Descriptive statistics of study variables are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for study variables.

	Baseline (N = 160)			4 weeks (N = 140)
Variable	n	M (SD)	Range	n	M (SD)	Range
Meaning in life	159	26.6 (5.8)	5–35	139	26.6 (6.2)	5–35
Purpose in life	157	21.5 (8.1)	12–30	138	24.4 (4.0)	12–30
Life satisfaction	159	23.4 (6.8)	5–35	138	24.3 (6.4)	9–35
Vitality	158	23.9 (6.7)	6–41	136	27.3 (7.1)	9–42
Depressive symptoms	154	5.6 (4.4)	0–24	138	4.0 (3.9)	0–18
	Daily (8 days)
Meaningful activity participation	964	2.6 (0.6)	0–4
Meaning salience	421	46.2 (12.4)	10–70
Positive mood	414	25.1 (6.7)	8–40
Negative mood	422	8.3 (3.5)	5–23

n in the Baseline and 4 weeks columns are the number of participants who completed the measure. n in the Daily column is the number of completed measures across days and participants. Meaningful activity participation was sent to all 160 participants. Meaning salience, positive mood, and negative mood were only sent to the self-monitoring subsample (n = 80). Range is the observed range of scores.

Participants rated the meaningfulness of the 46 common activities. The top 10 most meaningful activities, across participants, are found in Table 3, and the top 10 most commonly reported activities are in Table 4. Only three activities made both lists: caring for children or other family members, spending time with loved ones, and sleeping.

Table 3. Top 10 meaningful activities based on participant ratings.

Activity	Meaningfulness M (SD)
Spending time with loved ones	3.48 (0.78)
Supporting family members’ or friends’ goals and interests	3.34 (0.71)
Caring for children and other family members	3.12 (0.91)
Helping others	3.08 (0.77)
Education/Learning/School	3.03 (0.89)
Persevered at a valued goal even in the face of obstacles	2.98 (0.92)
Expressed my gratitude either verbally or in writing	2.93 (0.92)
Traveling	2.90 (1.03)
Listened carefully to another’s point of view	2.90 (0.86)
Sleeping	2.86 (0.95)

Meaningfulness was rated on a scale from 0 (not at all meaningful) to 4 (extremely meaningful) at baseline.

Table 4. Top 10 most frequently reported activities and their average meaningfulness.

Activity	Frequency (n)	Meaningfulness (M, SD)
Sleeping	14,843	2.86 (0.95)
Working	7042	2.66 (0.94)
Radio/TV	2973	1.65 (0.98)
Driving	2828	1.31 (1.17)
Eating	2448	2.43 (1.00)
Spending time with loved ones	1811	3.48 (0.78)
Getting ready (e.g., getting dressed, showering, etc.)	1519	1.86 (1.04)
Socializing	1423	2.57 (0.96)
Physical exercise	1251	2.41 (0.97)
Caring for children or other family members	1245	3.12 (0.91)

Note. Frequencies (n) are the number of times participants (N = 160) reported engaging in the activities over the 8 days of measurement. Participants reported which activities they were doing for every half hour of each 24-hour recall period. Meaningfulness was rated on a scale from 0 (not at all meaningful) to 4 (extremely meaningful) at baseline.

Daily meaningful activity participation, meaning salience, and mood

For a subsample of participants in the self-monitoring condition (n = 80), meaningful activity participation was examined within each day in relation to meaning salience and positive and negative mood. Across days and participants, greater meaningful activities participation was positively associated with greater meaning salience (r = .30, p < .001) and greater positive mood (r = .16, p < .001) but was not significantly correlated with negative mood (r = −.04, p = .40).

In a mixed model with days nested within participants and controlling for demographics, there was a significant, positive between-subjects relationship between meaningful activity participation and meaning salience (see Table 5). Participants who engaged in more meaningful activities on average also reported greater meaning salience. There was also a significant, small, and positive association between the within-subjects analysis of meaningful activity participation and meaning salience (see Table 5). Participants who reported greater daily meaningful activities participation than average also reported more meaning salience on the same day. Age was also significantly and positively associated with meaning salience. Participants who were older reported more meaning salience.

Table 5. Mixed models predicting same-day meaning salience, positive mood, and negative mood.

Predictor	Meaning Salience			Positive Mood			Negative Mood
Between-Subjects Effects	b	SE	β	b	SE	β	b	SE	β
Age	0.28	0.11	.25*	0.10	0.06	.16	-0.04	0.03	-.13
Female	2.96	2.71	.24	0.58	1.50	.09	0.80	0.80	.23
White	-0.87	2.51	-.07	-0.55	1.39	.24	0.83	0.74	.24
Married	4.02	2.54	.32	1.38	1.40	.12	0.41	0.39	.12
Employed full-time	-1.16	3.00	-.09	0.22	1.66	.03	0.30	0.88	.09
Income ≥ $40,000/year	-5.37	3.60	-.43	-1.51	2.00	-.22	-0.91	1.07	-.26
Bachelor’s degree or higher	1.44	3.81	.12	-3.18	2.11	-.47	-0.90	1.13	-.27
Meaningful activity participation	5.50	1.99	.25**	1.74	1.11	.15	-0.22	0.59	-.04
Within-Subjects Effects
Meaningful activity participation	5.98	1.58	.12***	2.56	1.01	.09*	-0.43	0.52	-.03

b = unstandardized regression coefficient. β = standardized regression coefficient. SE = Standard Error. ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05

The same model was repeated two more times with positive and negative mood as the dependent variables (see Table 5). There were no significant between-subjects associations between meaningful activity participation and positive or negative mood. However, there was a significant, small, and positive association between the within-subjects effect of meaningful activity participation and positive mood. On days that participants engaged in more meaningful activities than average, they reported more positive mood. There were no significant associations between meaningful activity participation and negative mood.

Meaningful activity participation in relation to well-being indicators

Baseline well-being measures of life satisfaction (r = .24, p = .002), purpose in life (r = .30, p < .001), and subjective vitality (r = .29, p < .001) were significantly and positively associated with meaningful activity participation over the next 4 weeks, whereas depressive symptoms (r = −.17, p = .04) were negatively associated with meaningful activity participation over the next 4 weeks. Participants who reported greater life satisfaction, vitality, and purpose in life and fewer depressive symptoms engaged in more meaningful activities over the next 4 weeks. Presence of meaning at baseline was not significantly associated with meaningful activity participation over the next 4 weeks (r = .12, p = .14). Similarly, meaningful activities participation during the 4 weeks was significantly and positively associated with 4-week follow-up measures of life satisfaction (r = .20, p = .019), subjective vitality (r = .27, p = .002), and purpose in life (r = .27, p = .001). Those who engaged in more meaningful activities were more satisfied with their lives, experienced more vitality, and had a greater sense of purpose in life. There were no significant associations between meaningful activities participation and 4-week assessment of depressive symptoms (r = −.06, p = .49) or presence of meaning (r = .11, p = .18).

Multiple linear regression models predicting vitality, life satisfaction, presence of meaning, purpose, and depressive symptoms at 1 month with demographics and meaningful activities participation over the previous 4 weeks are presented in Table 6. The models predicting the presence of meaning and depressive symptoms were not significant; thus, engagement in meaningful activities over the past 4 weeks was not associated with the presence of meaning or depressive symptoms at the follow-up visit. Controlling for demographics, greater engagement in meaningful activities was positively associated with a greater purpose in life, vitality, and life satisfaction at follow-up.

Table 6. Multiple regression models with meaningful activity participation predicting well-being at 4 weeks.

Variables	Purpose in Life	Meaning in Life	Life Satisfaction	Vitality	Depressive Symptoms
Age	.13	.14	.01	.20*	−.15
Female	.12	.08	.14	.02	−.07
White	−.16	−.02	.02	−.05	.11
Married	.15	.26**	.30**	.10	.02
Employed Full-time	.04	.05	−.05	.12	−.07
Income (≥ $40 k/year)	−.10	.08	−.13	−.23*	.05
Meaningful Activities Participation	.29***	.09	.22**	.30***	−.06
F	2.74*	1.81	3.05**	2.92**	0.98
R^2	.13	.09	.14	.14	.05

Estimates are standardized β. ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05.

Discussion

This study examined whether an idiographic assessment of meaningful activities participation was associated with the presence of meaning, meaning salience, and well-being. Consistent with hypotheses, results revealed that those who engaged in more meaningful activities on average reported greater meaning salience, and on days where they engaged in more meaningful activities than they typically do, they reported greater meaning salience and positive mood. Participants who experienced more vitality, life satisfaction, and purpose in life and fewer depressive symptoms at the beginning of the study subsequently engaged in more meaningful activities, and those who engaged in more meaningful activities during the study reported more vitality, life satisfaction, and purpose in life at follow-up. It appears that those who experience greater well-being are more likely to: (a) seek out or engage in more meaningful activities; (b) derive more meaning out of routine daily activities; or (c) both.

Encouraging people to engage in meaningful or valuable activities as a way to improve mental health and well-being has increasing interest, likely due to the popularization of ACT (Luoma et al., 2007). Behavioral activation, a psychotherapeutic technique that encourages people to engage in activities that are pleasurable or encourage mastery (Dimidjian, Barrera, Martell, Muñoz, & Lewinsohn, 2011), has been shown to be as effective as cognitive-behavioral therapy for depression at a much lower cost to administer (Richards et al., 2016). Behavioral activation itself does not necessarily include a meaning component, but including meaning or values in the intervention has the potential to augment motivation to continue the behavior (Kanter et al., 2010). One recent pilot study of a values-based behavioral activation intervention demonstrated that patients with chronic pain found the intervention acceptable and enjoyable and potentially reduced the extent that pain interfered with their everyday activities (Hooker, Slattengren, Boyle, & Sherman, 2019). Helping patients discover activities that they consider to be meaningful, increasing the range of meaningful activities available to them at any given moment, and then purposefully working with them to incorporate those activities into daily life could be a particularly impactful intervention. There is a significant opportunity to explore developing interventions with meaningful activity as a core component to improve well-being.

Although intentionally choosing to engage in meaningful activity is likely one path toward better well-being, we were not surprised to find that individuals in our study spent much of their time engaged in less meaningful activities. In fact, we suspect that most individuals spend much of their time engaged in what are typically considered the everyday, perhaps necessary, activities of individual lives, such as sleeping, working, engaging media, driving, and eating, as did our participants. The extent to which a person can appraise these everyday activities as meaningful likely impacts psychological well-being. For example, one can view the everyday task of making dinner as a dreaded chore or a valued and meaningful way of caring for one’s family. Another example would be that of a professor who is advising a student; the professor could view that advising appointment as one that takes away from other activities, or the professor could view the appointment as a valuable way of educating and supporting the next generation. It is not surprising that sleeping was the singularly most engaged in activity but it was surprising that participants rated sleeping in the top 10 list in terms of meaningfulness of the activity (M = 2.86). This finding could be unique to our sample but raises interesting possibilities in terms of using the meaningfulness of sleep to encourage better sleep in the general population or in providing sleep therapies. Heintzelman and King (2014) argue that our daily routines offer a feeling of predictability that actually supports a sense of coherence and meaning in life. One small qualitative study of patients with advanced cancer showed that patients can view everyday routines as a comfort and security in the midst of a large stressor (La Cour, Johannessen, & Josephsson, 2009). Others found that engagement in everyday activities that one finds valuable is positively associated with quality of life (Eklund, Bäckström, Lissner, Björklund, & Sonn, 2010). Understanding how people create meaning out of every day, perhaps even boring, activities, is an opportunity for future research.

In contrast to our, perhaps intuitive, hypothesis, presence of meaning, as measured by the Meaning in Life Questionnaire, was not related to meaningful activity participation. In trying to understand this finding we considered the nature of the two tasks; that is, assessing meaning in life and engaging in meaningful daily activities. Asking individuals to rate their meaning in life requires them to self-reflect on their experience of meaning over the long term, a task that may be rather disconnected from daily activities. In fact, it was an awareness of this likely disconnect that led us (Hooker et al., 2018) to develop the construct of meaning salience. Bauer et al. (2019) suggested that needs fulfillment requires subjective self-appraisals to improve psychological well-being. Our study supports this hypothesis, as meaningful activity participation was related to meaning salience (the extent to which participants were aware of their meaning at that time), but not to the presence of meaning in life (the extent to which individuals perceive their lives as meaningful). Further, there are many factors that contribute to how people find meaning in life, in addition to daily engagement in meaningful activities, such as relationships, achievement, personal growth, and religion (Schnell, 2011).

It is important to note that meaningful activities participation was not related to a negative mood or depressive symptoms at 4 weeks. This may be due to a floor effect, as the sample reported relatively low levels of depressive symptoms and negative mood. Baseline levels of depressive symptoms were related to engagement in less meaningful activities, which is consistent with the theory that patients with depressed mood tend to withdraw from important activities (Dimidjian et al., 2011).

Previous use of idiographic measures of meaningful activity has been limited, with the notable exception to Eakman’s (Eakman, 2013, 2014; Eakman et al., 2010) work. Other researchers have opted for a nomothetic approach, where they pre-determine the relative meaningfulness of activities (e.g., Kashdan & Steger, 2007). Given the differences in ratings of meaningfulness among people, an idiographic approach, rather than a nomothetic approach, has the potential to capture more of the differences in psychological well-being in relation to meaningful activities participation. However, this possibility has not yet been verified in studies that directly compare the two methods.

A major contribution of this study is adding to the literature by utilizing an idiographic measure of meaningful activities participation that allowed participants to ascribe meaning to a variety of daily activities. Additionally, it included multiple assessments of well-being over the course of 1 month. The study is limited by the observational longitudinal design, which can establish temporal precedence but not causality. Further, the work is limited by the sample of exercise initiates who were predominantly white, female, well-educated, and employed. This limits generalizability to individuals who are not starting exercise programs, males, racial/ethnic minorities, and those with lower income and education.

Future research should include larger samples of general community-dwelling adults, not only those joining fitness centers, from a range of socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds. Experiential sampling methods would provide insight into meaningful activities participation in context, and whether, and to what extent, participants’ ratings of the meaningfulness of activities change in certain situations or within smaller time epochs. It would also be interesting to conduct experimental studies encouraging participants to engage in more meaningful activities or to ascribe meaning to everyday, routine, activities and examine the impact on well-being. Such interventions may be particularly useful for people who have low psychological well-being, such as patients with mental health disorders or chronic illnesses.

Declarations of Interest Statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Kaylae Nakamura and Jean Wood for their assistance with data collection.

This research was supported by the American Heart Association Southwest Affiliate Predoctoral Fellowship (Grant Number: 14PRE18710033) to Stephanie A. Hooker.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the American Heart Association Southwest Affiliate Predoctoral Fellowship [14PRE18710033].