2. Meaning in Life: A Tripartite View
Throughout history and across cultures, individuals from various backgrounds, including philosophers, religious scholars, social scientists, and ordinary people, have grappled with the question of meaning in life. Experiencing life as meaningful is considered a fundamental human need (
Baumeister 1991;
Frankl 1963). In recent decades, there has been a substantial increase in empirical research that affirms the critical role that meaning in life (MIL) plays in promoting human flourishing and serves as a coping mechanism for navigating life’s adversities and suffering (e.g.,
Czekierda et al. 2017;
Damon 2008;
Janoff-Bulman and Yopyk 2004;
Linley and Joseph 2011;
Steger 2012;
Steger et al. 2009). For instance, individuals with higher levels of MIL tend to have more positive future orientations, hope, life satisfaction, happiness, and optimism (
King et al. 2006;
Mascaro and Rosen 2006;
Steger and Frazier 2005;
Steger et al. 2006;
Steger et al. 2008). Individuals with a strong sense of meaning also exhibit better coping abilities when faced with adversity, enabling them to adapt more effectively to stressful situations. They experience lower levels of depression (
Mascaro et al. 2004) and are less vulnerable to psychopathology (e.g.,
Debats 1999). Longitudinal studies have also found a positive association between higher levels of MIL and preventive behaviors among older individuals (
Zhang et al. 2022).
However, the abstract and multifaceted nature of the construct of meaning in life presents a significant challenge in both conceptual and empirical terms. Although significant progress has been made in the assessment and understanding of meaning in life, some scholars (e.g.,
Heintzelman and King 2014;
Leontiev 2013) have pointed out that the field still struggles with definitional ambiguity and overly simplistic approaches that fail to acknowledge the complex conceptual scope of MIL as a construct. For example, meaning and purpose have been claimed to be treated as “identical constructs in some instances and distinct constructs in others”, which further increases conceptual confusion (
George and Park 2013, p. 365).
The current common integrative conceptualization conceptualizes MIL as comprised of three central facets: comprehension/coherence, purpose, and mattering/significance
1 (
George and Park 2013;
Martela and Steger 2016). Each of the three facets taps into unique, fundamental dimensions of human experience, with varying psychological roots and distinct functions that may serve in human life (
Steger et al. 2008). The first facet,
coherence, reflects the cognitive aspect of meaning in life. It centers on individuals making sense of their life experiences and finding ways to render them comprehensible. People with a strong sense of coherence tend to feel that their life makes sense and is coherent (
Baumeister 1991;
George and Park 2016). This aspect is closely related to the Meaning Maintenance Model (MMM); (
Heine et al. 2006) literature which proposes that meaning is rooted in the expected relationships and associations that individuals construct and apply to their surroundings (
Heine et al. 2006). This is based on the idea that humans possess an innate drive to comprehend their environment; thus, when individuals perceive inconsistencies between their interpretation of a specific situation and their overarching beliefs and worldviews, it can lead to a sense of discomfort. This, in turn, can prompt efforts to make sense of the situation and reduce the distress experienced, in order to regain a sense of coherence (e.g.,
Park 2010;
Proulx and Inzlicht 2012).
The second facet,
purpose, refers to the motivational aspect and the degree to which individuals feel that their lives are being directed and motivated by valued life goals. In other words, it is defined as a “central, self-organizing life aim that organizes and stimulates goals, manages behaviors, and provides a sense of meaning” (
McKnight and Kashdan 2009, p. 242). This aspect is closely related to the literature on goal engagement, self-regulation, and future orientation (see
George and Park 2013;
Martela and Steger 2016). The third facet of meaning,
significance, refers to the existential aspect of meaning. The concept of significance is often used interchangeably with
mattering, and it pertains to the perceived worth and value of one’s life and reflects the degree to which individuals believe that their existence holds importance and value. People who have a high sense of mattering/significance tend to believe that their presence carries considerable weight and has long-lasting impact (
George and Park 2013;
Martela and Steger 2016).
Overall, the tripartite view of meaning in life (MIL) unpacks the concept into three distinct facets or subconstructs, which allows for a more nuanced understanding and multidimensional assessment of MIL (MEMS;
George and Park 2017). However, given that the common thread that runs through all three aspects of meaning in life is reflective interpretation of one’s experiences (
Martela and Steger 2016), it is still unclear which specific underlying internal processes are at play in the development of each of these facets. Despite the burgeoning research and emerging understanding of the concept of meaning in life, its sources, and its contribution to human functioning, more knowledge is needed to better understand how people form a sense of coherence, purpose, and significance in their lives.
4. Integration of Character Strengths and Meaning in Life
Despite growing interest and developments in both fields of meaning and character strengths, only scant and sparse scientific endeavors have been made thus far to integrate between them. For example, theoretical and practical exploration of the potential interplay between character strengths and spirituality has been suggested, specifically in terms of how spirituality involves the pursuit of the sacred and the search for meaning (
Niemiec et al. 2020). In studies that have examined the construct of meaning, interesting findings have emerged. All character strengths were found to be associated with meaning in life and orientation toward meaning (
Littman-Ovadia and Steger 2010;
Peterson et al. 2007;
Peterson and Park 2012). For instance, Peterson and colleagues (
Peterson et al. 2007) conducted an exploratory investigation to examine how character strengths relate to the three authentic happiness orientations—pleasurable, engaging, and meaningful modes of existence (
Seligman 2002). The study found that all 24 character strengths played a significant role in accounting for variance in all three happiness orientations, but the effect was the most pronounced in the meaningful orientation. The character strength of spirituality showed the strongest association with meaning, while the character strengths of zest, hope, and gratitude also displayed high correlations with meaning. Another study conducted by Allan (
Allan 2015) showed that, not only were all 24 character strengths positively associated with a meaningful life, but also that a balance in specific strengths was crucial for experiencing a meaningful life. Their study found that high levels of alignment between the pairs of kindness and honesty, love and social intelligence, and hope and gratitude were linked to a meaningful life. Purpose, one of three core dimensions of meaning in life, has been examined in relation to character strengths. In the largest, global study of purpose and strengths to date (N = 60,000), the character strengths of hope, spirituality, zest, perseverance, and curiosity had the largest effect sizes with purpose (
Weziak-Bialowolska et al. 2023). The study used the short form of the Purpose in Life Test (
Schulenberg et al. 2011). Taken together, these findings suggest that, to experience a meaningful life, there is benefit to cultivating multiple character strengths, rather than focusing on one or two.
Although existing studies on integration have drawn a number of significant connections between character strengths and meaning in life and outlined promising directions, the samples have been limited, the measures have not separated or examined the components of meaning, and/or the studies have not examined nuances of meaning from the participant perspective. Previous studies have thus far focused on a general understanding of meaning, rather than taking into account a more nuanced and multidimensional perspective that considers the three components of meaning. Each component refers to a different dimension in the experience of meaning in life. This raises the question of which character strengths facilitate a sense of coherence, purpose, and significance, and why?
The objective of the present study was therefore to examine these components of meaning separately in order to more deeply understand the nuances of meaning: how individuals derive meaning from their world, pursue purpose, and feel significant to others and the world. Examining the ingredients or unique character strengths pathways for each will help to advance the science of meaning and the science of character strengths and potentially lead to more nuanced interventions for facilitating meaning in life. For example, the component of purpose, which involves transcending oneself, looking towards the future in a positive manner, and striving, may be expected to be associated with character strengths such as spirituality, hope, and perseverance. The component of significance or mattering, which refers to connections, may be associated with character strengths like love, as well as heart-based character strengths such as gratitude and kindness. The component of coherence or sense-making may be associated with character strengths that involve wisdom and knowledge, such as perspective (gaining a broader understanding), curiosity (exploring the world), and spirituality due to the element of making sense of the universe.
The present study takes an explorative mixed-methods approach to investigate how people from a large-scale sample view the interplay between their character strengths and specific aspects of meaning in life. It also takes into consideration the possible contribution of gender and age. Specifically, the study aimed to achieve the following objectives: (1) to analyze the correlation between valid measures of meaning components and character strengths, (2) to examine the relative importance of character strengths across gender and age differences, (3) to assess the personal significance of one’s character strengths for achieving each of the meaning components (i.e., coherence, purpose, and significance), and (4) to gain insights into the reasons behind the selection of each character strength and identify gender and age differences.
7. Discussion
The results of the present study suggest that character strengths displayed strong associations with not only meaning in life in general, but with each dimension of meaning in life. This suggestion is based on two independent results: (1) Correlations between meaning in life dimensions and strengths means derived from the VIA Inventory of Strengths; (2) comparisons between dimensions of meaning in life among participants who chose their most important character strengths for providing coherence, purpose and significance. From the first series of results all character strengths were strongly correlated with the dimensions of meaning in life. The character strengths that showed the highest correlations with total meaning were hope, spirituality, gratitude, zest, and curiosity. These are the same top five strengths found in the initial study that looked at character strengths and meaning by Peterson and colleagues (
Peterson et al. 2007), using a different measure of meaning. There is convergence with the findings of other studies that have generally found similar character strengths (curiosity, spirituality, gratitude) as well as others (appreciation of beauty, social intelligence, perspective) to be related to meaning when informant reports were woven into the study (
Wagner et al. 2019). Interestingly, these same five strengths we found to be most correlated with total meaning were also the best predictors of total meaning, indicating their unique contribution to meaning in life. Specific to the meaning dimensions, the strongest character strengths predictors were hope, spirituality, zest, gratitude, and appreciation of beauty (the latter was a negative relationship) for coherence; hope, spirituality, curiosity, forgiveness, and appreciation of beauty (the latter two were negative relationships) for purpose; and spirituality, hope, zest, gratitude, and judgment (the latter was a negative relationship) for significance. The strengths of hope and spirituality reflect the most consistent, general, impactful role across the dimensions of meaning indicating the importance of an orientation that is based in future-mindedness, optimism, and the sacred. The additional role of an exploratory approach, especially for making sense of the world, an energetic and appreciative approach, especially for displaying purpose and feeling like one matters to others, are also noteworthy and substantial. The negative relationships for appreciation of beauty, forgiveness, and judgment for different dimensions are interesting. The negative values could be a result of multi-collinearity. However, since tolerance values were in the acceptable range, it seems that the values represent a negative unique contribution once the effects of other variables are taken into account. It is possible that these findings reflect an overuse of strengths that impact the meaning dimension, as it has been discussed and empirically supported that too much use of character strengths can be associated with negative results and might reflect an imbalance or a narrowing of one’s attention and resources (
Niemiec 2019). Further exploration might examine whether too much aesthetic and sensory appreciation of beauty, letting go (forgiveness), and analysis/critique (judgment) might have negative ramifications for the pursuit of meaning in life.
From the second series of results involving participants’ reports on the strength most important for them to use for each pathway, some character strengths aligned with all three pathways (e.g., love) while others were uniquely strong for one dimension in particular (e.g., hope, for significance). While curiosity, spirituality, and hope were featured among the top five participants’ self-reports, there were additional strengths that featured strongly (e.g., love, kindness, and perspective). This indicates that there are some similarities and differences in individuals’ preferences for strengths’ use and their character connection to meaning in life. This also points to the importance of scientific studies continuing to differentiate among the elements of life meaning (e.g., (
George and Park 2016;
Martela and Steger 2016;
Martela and Steger 2023), as well as the different contributions that core parts of positive personality can have on meaning.
More specifically, the five most frequently selected strengths which facilitate a sense of comprehension were love, kindness, perspective, curiosity, and spirituality. The five most frequent strengths which facilitate a sense of purpose were perseverance, love of learning, curiosity, love, and hope. The five most frequent strengths which facilitate a sense of significance/mattering were love, kindness, spirituality, perspective, and hope. Taking the character strengths and tripartite elements of meaning together, we suggest that, in order to optimally make sense of the world, feel that one’s existence is of significance, and pursue purpose-driven goals, people might need to turn deep within, up and beyond, and sideways and interconnectedly in their life meaning journey (
Mayseless and Russo-Netzer 2017). The frequently selected character strengths support this notion. The turning inward (i.e., deep within) for exploration is facilitated by curiosity and love of learning to build knowledge and foster greater wisdom, and perhaps using the determination of perseverance and the optimism of hope to support the inward work toward meaning. The sideways and interconnected element involving finding meaning with others is likely facilitated by the character strength patterns of love and kindness and perhaps also the honesty and humor strengths to bring authenticity and also fun and lightheartedness to relationships. The up and beyond element is supported by the connecting outside oneself with the spirituality strength and the wider, long-view quality brought by the strength of perspective. These examples show the synergy brought forth by the common patterns of character strengths expression across the dimensions of meaning and their importance to the wider journey of life meaning.
Interestingly, love was found to be the character strength aligned with all three pathways of meaning in life. This reflects the centrality of love to individuals’ experience of meaning in life, essentially representing that which makes us “come most fully alive and feel most fully human” (
Fredrickson 2013, p. 10), and “the ultimate and highest goal to which man can aspire” (
Frankl 1946, p. 57). The unique characteristics of connection, expanded awareness of oneself, others, and the world, and a sense of transcendence beyond one’s self-interest (
Fredrickson 2013), which constitute aspects of the character strength of love, may be at play in people’s understanding and cultivation of their sense of meaning in life. Through love, individuals can establish meaningful relationships and connections with others, which in turn can provide a sense of purpose and direction in life, as well as providing them with a sense of significance and mattering. Love can also help individuals make sense of their experiences, as they can view their experiences and challenges in the context of the broader human experience and feel a sense of empathy and understanding for others who have faced similar difficulties.
The gender differences that emerged were quite interesting. For coherence and making sense of the world, women significantly chose more love, kindness, spirituality, and gratitude, whereas men significantly chose more curiosity, judgment/critical thinking, honesty, humor, humility, leadership, teamwork, and prudence. In terms of the dimension of purpose, women significantly chose more love of learning, love, kindness, and gratitude, while men significantly chose more judgment/critical thinking, honesty, humor, and prudence. In terms of significance and having a sense of mattering, women significantly chose more love, kindness, spirituality, and gratitude, whereas men significantly chose more creativity, leadership, humor, honesty, curiosity, judgment/critical thinking, and fairness.
Thus, for the three dimensions of meaning, women were significantly higher in selecting traditional heart-based strengths (e.g., love, kindness, gratitude) while men were significantly higher in choosing traditional mind-oriented strengths (e.g., judgment, honesty, prudence). These patterns appear to align with traditional gender roles relating to women and emotions/heart and men and thinking/mind. Perhaps this indicates the preferences to explore perceptions of meaning per one’s default toward mind or heart. The differences for women also align with the results of a meta-analysis of gender differences in character strengths that revealed, across studies, only four differences, which were all in favor of women being higher than men in terms of selecting love, kindness, gratitude, and appreciation of beauty (
Heintz et al. 2017) (in our study, the first three being salient for women across all three meaning dimensions). Future studies should aim to further unpack these differential trends between men and women in their salient character strengths in relation to the three meaning components.
Age trends showed an increase over the years for spirituality, love of learning, and gratitude for the coherence pathway. This indicates an ongoing quest for learning, a seeking of the sacred in life and trying to make more sense of the universe, and an appreciation for life that grows over time. The decrease in humor and appreciation of beauty for coherence over the years might reflect a growing seriousness toward life (humor) and decreased attentiveness and use of senses to engage and appreciate the world. For purpose, the increase over the years in love of learning, spirituality, and fairness shows the importance of valued life goals involving growth in learning, an inclusiveness of others, and connections outside oneself. The decrease in hope and bravery over the years for purpose might reflect a decreased willingness to take risks and move out of one’s comfort zone (
Russo-Netzer and Cohen 2022) and less hopefulness about the diminishing future. For significance, spirituality and fairness increased through the lifetime showing, again, the crucial role of the pursuit of or communing with the sacred for meaning-making. The trend for increases in fairness indicates a pursuit of a more emotional meaning—a mattering—and that the pursuit and expression of fairness and justice is important for mattering. For significance, there was a decrease in creativity, humor, appreciation of beauty, and bravery. These might reflect a decreasing use of these strengths in relationships as their focus (except for humor) is more intrapersonal than interpersonal. Future research may further explore this direction, especially given the fast-paced digital world of our time which prioritizes stimulation and distraction over depth and nuance of individuals’ engagement in creativity, humor, appreciation of beauty, and bravery.
When comparing the three components of meaning in life, we found that purpose was the most important, irrespectively of the character strength selected. However, differences existed between coherence and significance. In terms of differences between character strengths for making sense of life and the world, participants who selected kindness, perspective, and curiosity had significantly higher values in coherence than in significance, while participants who selected spirituality had significantly higher values in significance than in coherence. For character strengths related to purpose, participants who selected perseverance, love of learning and love had significantly higher values in coherence than in significance, while participants who selected curiosity had significantly higher values in significance than in coherence. In terms of significance, participants who selected love, kindness, and perspective had significantly higher values in coherence than in significance, while participants who selected spirituality had significantly higher values in significance than in coherence. These findings further highlight that people are able to distinguish between the three dimensions of meaning (
Martela and Steger 2023) and underscores potential underlying mechanisms which support each as a unique experience and manifestation in people’s lives.
The qualitative analysis helped delve into nuances of responses exploring character strength uses for coherence, significance, and purpose. In examining themes found to be sufficiently reliable, the most common themes for coherence, starting with the most frequent, were connecting with others and nature (love), connecting through religion/God (spirituality), overcoming suffering (perseverance), love as a driving force (love), better understanding others (perspective), connecting with people (spirituality), positive thinking (perspective), contribution to making a better world (kindness), and coping (spirituality). These dominant themes are what individuals identify as central ways to use one’s character strengths to make sense of one’s life and the world.
For purpose, the most common themes, starting with the most frequent, were family and friends (love), better understanding of the world (curiosity), reaching goals (love of learning), achievement (perseverance), coping (creativity), connection with others (love of learning), positive outcomes (hope), God/religion (love), making a better world (love), God/religion (hope). These purpose themes show several ways to use one’s character strengths in the service of pursuing valued goals; they reflect achievement to generate purpose, connections to family, friends, God, and the larger world, and coping with challenges along the way.
For significance, the most common themes, starting with the most frequent, were connections and relationships (love), religion/God (spirituality), impacting/helping others (hope), doing/making a difference (gratitude), impacting/making a difference (perspective), meaning (gratitude), meaning (hope), improving the world (love), God/religion (gratitude), making a better world (spirituality), religiosity/God (love), religious faith (hope), and achieving goals (hope). The use of different character strengths to connect spiritually, to engage in religious practices, and to make a positive impact and help others were most common for the meaning dimension of significance. These are themes of mattering—feeling that one makes a difference for the world and in the lives of others.
These qualitative themes may point specifically to how character strengths can serve as pathways to each dimension of meaning, and might thereby be important avenues for meaning-based interventions. For example, a large percentage of people would seem to relate directly to interventions that target the character strength of love for building relationships in order to foster deeper personal mattering. At the same time, a good percentage of people would relate to an intervention targeting one’s curiosity in order to build a better understanding of the world and thereby enhance purpose. For coherence, an intervention might target love to help people connect with nature to make greater sense of the world or target perseverance to facilitate understanding by creating new ways to overcome suffering.