Validation of the German Version of the Meaning in Life Measure
Creators: name: Anoschin, Albert
Publisher: name: Open Science Framework
Year: 2022
Subjects: subject: Medicine and Health Sciences
subject: Social and Behavioral Sciences
subject: Psychology
subject: FOS: Psychology
subject: instrument
subject: meaning
subject: meaning in life
subject: measure
subject: mental health
subject: personality functioning
subject: questionnaire
subject: validation

description: This study aims to validate the German translation of the Meaning in Life Measure (MILM) developed by Hill et al. (2019). The self-report instrument assesses the presence of experienced meaning in life and the tendency to reflect about meaning with two subscales (8 items in total). Hill et al. (2019) conceptualized experience of meaning and reflection about meaning as associated factors related to positive outcomes of mental health and well-being. The authors suggested that the deliberate cognitive process of reflecting about meaning is a central component to experiencing one’s life as meaningful. The authors follow the assumption, that “one would not have meaning if one did not reflect on it to gain that meaning” (Hill et al., 2019, p. 208). Although reflection and experience scores were positively correlated in Hill et al.’s cross-sectional study, it should be noted that the assertion of reflection being a precursor to the experience of meaning is of theoretical nature and warrants further empirical investigation. Importantly, other theoretical accounts and empirical findings (Heintzelman &amp; King, 2016) suggest that the experience of meaning in life occurs intuitively rather than deliberately, for instance through automatic processes of coherence detection (Heintzelman &amp; King, 2014). Interestingly, the process of detecting meaning can even be impaired when people engage in effortful reflection (Topolinski &amp; Strack, 2008). In line with these findings, we argue that effortful reflection is neither a necessary component of nor an antecedent to experiencing meaning in life (although it may co-occur with this experience). This is supported by our cross-sectional data indicating that the association between reflection and experience is lower than originally assumed (Remmers et al., 2021). Moreover, in a recent longitudinal study we found that reflection scores did not predict experienced meaning assessed six months later (Remmers et al., 2022). In the current project, we aim to collect new data in a German sample (N = 300) for examination of reliability and construct validity of the translated MILM (Remmers &amp; Zimmermann, 2019). We performed confirmatory factor analyses of the German instrument with existing data (n = 1177) from a previous study (Remmers et al., 2021). Specifically, we compared the fit of a two correlated factors model proposed by Hill et al. (2019) against an orthogonal two-factor solution and a simple one-factor solution. The model with two correlated latent factors (Experience and Reflection) yielded the best fit: Satora-Bentler scaled 𝛘2 = 190.87, p &lt; .001, df = 19; RMSEA = .099; SRMR = .067; CFI = .93. The correlation between the latent factors in our sample was lower (r = .13) than the correlation between the subscales reported by Hill et al. (r = .49). Inspection of the modification indices revealed a cross-loading of item 6 on the first factor (Experience), suggesting that its removal would result in the largest improvement of model fit. We concluded that omitting this item is theoretically justified. The wordings of the three remaining items include “thinking” about meaning and thus capture the construct of reflection more closely than item 6 (“Meaning in life is a topic I value”). In the next step, we aim to compare the original two-factor solution with our revised model (without item 6) utilizing the data that will be collected for the purpose of this study (H1a). We expect our model to result in a better fit when compared to a one-factor solution (H1b). For correlation analyses, we will collect self-report measures of satisfaction with life, psychological well-being, self-efficacy, preference for intuition and deliberation, rumination, and religiosity (see Variables section for a list of all instruments). We will evaluate validity by verifying associations of the German MILM scales with two established measures of meaning in life. We expect a positive association between the experience scale of the MILM and the “presence of meaning” scale of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ; Steger et al., 2006; see H2a). We further assume that the MILM reflection scale and the “search for meaning” scale of the MLQ capture facets of the same construct (i.e., deliberate cognitive occupation with topics of meaning in life). Thus, we expect a significant positive association between the two scales (H2b). Previous theoretical accounts suggest that experience of meaning in life can be subdivided into three components, namely coherence, purpose and mattering/significance (Costin &amp; Vignoles, 2020; Martela &amp; Steger, 2016). Hill et al. (2019) considered these subcomponents in the construction of the experience subscale of the MILM. Consequently, we expect the MILM experience scale to be positively associated with the self-report measure of coherence, purpose and mattering by Costin and Vignoles (2020). Additionally, we will test the nomological framework of meaning in life by examining associations between MILM scales and measures of theoretically (un-)related constructs. The rationale behind our choice of measures is described next. We will associate experience of and reflection about meaning in life with preference for intuition versus deliberation. Hereby, we follow recent theoretical and empirical studies showing that the experience of meaning is related to intuition (Heintzelman &amp; King, 2016). Moreover, research has shown that coherence detection for which no solution can be retrieved explicitly, is the result of associative and fast intuitive processing (Topolinski &amp; Strack, 2009). Trying to deliberately find solution words for semantically related stimuli can even impair the intuitive detection of coherence (Topolinski &amp; Strack, 2008). Following this line of experimental research, our aim is to investigate whether the experience of meaning in life (which may be independent of the explicit knowledge what life’s meaning is) is associated with self-reported intuition (H3a). Consequently, we expect reflection about meaning in life to be positively associated with preference for deliberation (H3b) because preference for deliberation is characterized by an effortful and reflective cognitive style (Betsch, 2004). Hill et al. (2019) concluded that both experiencing meaning and reflecting about meaning are positively related to subjective well-being. In accordance with their data and the existing body of research on meaning in life (King &amp; Hicks, 2021) we likewise expect that the experience of meaning is a positive correlate of psychological well-being and life satisfaction (H4a, H6a). However, with regard to reflection about meaning we hypothesize that this facet may rather be positively associated with rumination (H5; see Park &amp; Yoo, 2016). Although reflection is discussed as one of several precursors to experiencing meaning (Chu &amp; Fung, 2021; Hill et al., 2019), extensive reflection, and especially rumination, have been shown to correlate with measures of psychopathology (Watkins &amp; Roberts, 2020). Furthermore, the low correlation between reflection and experience scales in our previous study (Remmers et al., 2021) does not point to reflection being a prerequisite for finding meaning in life. In addition, reflection about meaning, assessed with the MILM, was positively associated with depression and personality functioning impairments in our previous investigations (Remmers et al., 2021). Accordingly, we expect a negative association between reflection and psychological well-being in the present study (H4b). Following this line of thought, we further expect a negative association between reflection about meaning and life satisfaction (H6b). Having a meaning in life is not merely a passive mental state but is tied to motivational aspects such as working towards a greater purpose or goal in life (Martela &amp; Steger, 2016). Meaning may also be experienced or “enacted” in daily life through routines (Heintzelman &amp; King, 2019) and religious practice (King &amp; Hicks, 2021). Accordingly, we expect that experience of meaning will be positively associated with self-efficacy (H7) and religiosity (H8).