Is There Such a Thing as “Ultimate” Meaning? A Review of Fluid versus Fixed Models of Different Forms of Human Striving

ABSTRACT

A growing number of social psychological theories have posited that meaning-striving can be compensated for across domains; threats in one area can simply be addressed by gains in another. Other models argue that not all forms of meaning are created equal; certain forms of striving trump other ones. This review compares the assertions made by these different models related to meaning to illustrate that (a) with few exceptions, fluidity is central to meaning, and (b) despite such consensus on the fluid nature of meaning, existing models diverge on the existence and nature of “ultimate” meanings. Future directions for the empirical study of meaning and methodological considerations are discussed.

Notes

Throughout this review, domain is used broadly to refer to both specific areas or topics (in which one can defend themselves, e.g., as used by Heine et al., 2006; McGregor et al., 2001; Proulx & Heine, 2010), as well as to refer to self versus nonself (e.g., Steele & Liu, 1983; Tesser, 2000).