Detecting and constructing meaning in life events

Abstract

Three studies examined the meaning ascribed to events varying in intensity and valence and how meaning detection and construction relate to the experience of meaning in life events. In Study 1, participants were more likely to expect meaning to emerge from major life events particularly if they are negative, while trivial events were expected to be meaningful if they were positive. Study 2 showed that constructed meaning was more likely to occur in response to negative events while detected meaning was more likely to be associated with positive events. Study 3 showed that this ‘match’ between valence and meaning strategy predicted enhanced experience of meaning in those events. These studies suggest that the more subtle experience of meaning detection may provide a way to understand the meaning that emerges from positive events and experiences.

Keywords:

• meaning
• life events
• well-being

Notes

Notes

1. The scenarios were constructed so that all events were uncontrollable by the participants, so that meaning could not be due to personal faults or strengths.

2. Analyses also examined whether pre-existing mood might relate to the types of meaning making engaged in, over and above the effects of condition. However, for both types of meaning making, pre-existing mood neither served as a significant predictor nor interacted with other variables to significantly predict type of meaning making. It is possible, however, that the act of meaning making itself might influence mood. Thus, finally, a regression equation was computed predicting post-session mood from the experimental conditions, pre-test mood, and the two types of meaning making coded for in the responses (detected versus constructed). Indeed, analyses examining mood following the meaning-making exercise demonstrated that for NA, only, the use of meaning-detection processes related to lowered levels of NA (β = −0.15), controlling for pretest NA, constructed meaning, and experimental condition.

3. Content analyses were performed in two stages. First, all of the responses were read and all instances of meaning-relevant statements were noted. Based on this exhaustive list, a coding scheme was devised that listed all of the ways a person might engage in meaning making, including ‘learned a lesson,’ ‘realized it was God's will,’ ‘came to understand what people are really like,’ etc. Two independent coders then used these inductively defined themes as dimensions for rating and rated the theme as present or absent. An exploratory factor analysis of these initial ratings showed that they fell into two factors, conforming to the detected meaning versus constructed meaning. Based on these analyses and discussions with the raters, it was determined that the exhaustive lists were overly taxing, led to rater decay, and presumably accounted for unreliability in the ratings (King, 2003). As such, a simpler ratings scheme was devised.

4. Additional analyses were conducted in Studies 3 using only the ‘This event was very meaningful to me’ item to assess subjective meaningfulness. The results paralleled those using the two-item dependent measure. It might be noted that the items tapping meaning construction may seem most appropriate to negative life events. We would suggest that this appearance is in keeping with the fact that negative events may be more difficult in terms of their challenge to a meaning maker.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Joshua A. Hicks

This research was supported by NIMH Grant no. MH54142 to Laura A. King and NIAAA Grant no. T32 AA13526 to Josh Hicks. We would like to thank Amber K. Del Gaiso, Jennifer Dauve, Cara Sampson, and Julie Sampson for their assistance in data collection and coding. In addition, we thank Chad Burton for helpful comments on previous versions of this paper. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Laura A. King, Department of Psychological Sciences, 210 McAlester Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65201, USA. Electronic mail may be sent to [email protected] (for Laura King) or [email protected] (for Josh Hicks).