The unbearable lightness of meaning: Well-being and unstable meaning in life

Abstract

Psychological theories prioritize developing enduring sources of meaning in life. As such, unstable meaning should be detrimental to well-being. Two daily experience sampling studies were conducted to test this hypothesis. Across the studies, people with greater instability of daily meaning reported lower daily levels of meaning in life, and lower global levels of life satisfaction, positive affect, social connectedness and relationship satisfaction, along with higher global levels of negative affect and depression. In addition, instability of meaning interacted with average daily levels of meaning to account for significant variance in meaning in life scores. Relative to people with more stable meaning, people with unstable meaning tended to score near the middle of the distribution of well-being, whether they reported high or low levels of daily meaning. Results are discussed with an eye toward a better understanding of meaning in life and developing interventions to stabilize and maximize well-being.

Full text

This article was downloaded by: [Colorado State University], [Michael Steger]
On: 13 March 2013, At: 09:33
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Journal of Positive Psychology: Dedicated to
furthering research and promoting good practice
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpos20
The unbearable lightness of meaning: Well-being and
unstable meaning in life
Michael F. Steger a b & Todd B. Kashdan c
a Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
b North-West University, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa
c Department of Psychology, George Mason University, Mail Stop 3F5, Fairfax, VA, 22030,
USA
Version of record first published: 11 Mar 2013.
To cite this article: Michael F. Steger & Todd B. Kashdan (2013): The unbearable lightness of meaning: Well-being and
unstable meaning in life, The Journal of Positive Psychology: Dedicated to furthering research and promoting good practice,
DOI:10.1080/17439760.2013.771208
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.771208
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

The unbearable lightness of meaning: Well-being and unstable meaning in life
Michael F. Steger
a,b
* and Todd B. Kashdan
c
a
Department of Psychology, Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO, USA;
b
North-West University, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa;
c
Department of Psychology, George Mason University Mail Stop 3F5, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA
(Received 5 April 2012; final version received 11 January 2013)
Psychological theories prioritize developing enduring sources of meaning in life. As such, unstable meaning should
be detrimental to well-being. Two daily experience sampling studies were conducted to test this hypothesis. Across
the studies, people with greater instability of daily meaning reported lower daily levels of meaning in life, and lower
global levels of life satisfaction, positive affect, social connectedness and relationship satisfaction, along with higher
global levels of negative affect and depression. In addition, instability of meaning interacted with average daily levels
of meaning to account for significant variance in meaning in life scores. Relative to people with more stable meaning,
people with unstable meaning tended to score near the middle of the distribution of well-being, whether they reported
high or low levels of daily meaning. Results are discussed with an eye toward a better understanding of meaning in
life and developing interventions to stabilize and maximize well-being.
Keywords: meaning in life; well-being; social connectedness; purpose in life
It is not that I have no past. Rather, it continually
fragments on the terrible and vivid ephemera of now.
(Samuel R. Delany)
Meaning in life has joined a host of other variables
at the center of psychological accounts of the Good Life
(e.g. King & Napa, 1998; Lent, 2004; Ryff & Singer,
1998). Yet, many issues remain untested and unresolved.
For example, researchers and clinicians have only begun
to establish how we might help people increase percep-
tions of meaning in their lives (King, Hicks, Krull, &
Del Gaiso, 2006). Likewise, almost nothing is known
about the importance of stable meaning in life judgments
to psychological and social functioning. Nearly all
research on meaning in life has looked at it as a stable,
global individual difference, employing trait-based mea-
sures of people’s typical perceptions of meaning (for
review, see Steger, 2012). A modest number of experi-
ence-sampling studies have been conducted that shed
light on how day-to-day, within-person variations in
meaning in life judgments relate to other daily experi-
ences (e.g. Kashdan & Steger, 2007; King et al., 2006,
Study 2; Steger & Frazier, 2005; Steger & Kashdan,
2009; Steger, Kashdan, & Oishi, 2008). Although these
studies illuminate the tendency for daily ratings of mean-
ing in life to fluctuate, they tell us little about the conse-
quences of unstable meaning. What of meaning that
‘continually fragments on the terrible and vivid ephemera
of now’, (Delany, 1975, p. 10)? The purpose of this
investigation was to examine the stability of daily mean-
ing in life judgments and assess whether excessive insta-
bility indicates psychological, social, or physical
vulnerabilities. First, we review the literature on meaning
in life, followed by a consideration of why instability in
meaning in life judgments might be a psychological vul-
nerability. Then, we present two daily diary studies that
test associations of unstable meaning in life judgments
with measures of psychological and social functioning.
In his writing about meaning in life, Frankl (1963)
extended Nietzsche’s claim that ‘he [sic] who has a why
can endure any how,’to argue that finding a meaningful
purpose for our existence gives us the psychological
resources and motivation to persevere through hardship
(McKnight & Kashdan, 2009). Subsequent research pur-
sued the task of establishing that meaning and purpose
are essential. Contemporary ideas about meaning in life
focus on the possession of understanding one’s life expe-
riences and identifying important lifelong aspirations to
pursue (e.g. King et al., 2006). Thus, meaning in life has
been defined as ‘the extent to which people comprehend,
make sense of, or see significance in their lives, accom-
panied by the degree to which they perceives themselves
to have a purpose, mission, or overarching aim in life’
(Steger, 2009, p. 682).
This definition refers to the presence of meaning in
people’s lives. Efforts also have been made to understand
the search for meaning in life. People might search for
meaning if they feel like their lives are meaningless
*Corresponding author. Email: michael.f.steger@colostate.edu
The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.771208
Ó2013 Taylor & Francis
Downloaded by [Colorado State University], [Michael Steger] at 09:33 13 March 2013

(e.g. Baumeister, 1991), or if they were motivated to
continually deepen their ideas about what their lives
mean (e.g. Maddi, 1970). The definition of search for
meaning accounts for both kinds of motivations (Steger,
Kashdan, Sullivan, & Lorentz, 2008). Essentially, the
presence of meaning is about the destination and search
for meaning is about the journey.
These two dimensions of meaning in life are almost
always operationalized according to how people rate the
intensity of their experience of meaning on any of sev-
eral self-report questionnaires. Thus, the majority of
research on meaning in life has focused on reports con-
cerning the level of meaning in life people subjectively
experience. This emphasis on the level of meaning in life
can be distinguished from the more qualitative, intuitive,
and complex web of sources, origins, and contents of
people’s meanings for their lives. In essence, most mean-
ing in life research has focused on the question ‘how
meaningful does my life feel’rather than the question
‘what is the meaning of my life.’
People who rate themselves as having a great deal of
meaning in their lives also report higher levels of happi-
ness (e.g. Debats, van der Lubbe, & Wezeman, 1993), life
satisfaction (e.g. Chamberlain & Zika, 1988; Steger,
Oishi, & Kesebir, 2011), and general well-being (e.g.
Bonebright, Clay, & Ankenmann, 2000) and physical
health (Brassai, Piko, & Steger, 2011; Steger, Mann,
Michels, & Cooper, 2009). In addition, they report higher
levels of social closeness (e.g. Ryff, 1989). Most people
who report a tendency to continually search for meaning
in their lives endorse greater anxiety (Steger, Frazier,
Oishi, & Kaler, 2006), stress reactivity, social isolation,
and maladaptive personality traits (Steger, Kashdan, Sulli-
van, et al., 2008). Despite these contrasting profiles, the
presence of meaning and search for meaning are corre-
lated at fairly low levels, indicating a fair degree of inde-
pendence. Recently, researchers found evidence that the
consequences of searching for meaning differ depending
on whether the seeker feels his or her life is meaningful
or meaningless (Steger, Kawabata, Shimai, & Otake,
2008; Steger et al., 2009; Steger, Oishi, & Kesibir, 2011).
One of the implications of this last finding is that
people who cannot find meaning, or establish stable
meaning, search for it. People are sensitive to a lack of
meaning in their lives, and often respond with height-
ened distress (e.g. Harlow, Newcomb, & Bentler, 1986),
and poorer health (e.g. Ishida & Okada, 2006; Krause,
2004; O’Conner & Vallerand, 1998; Ryff et al., 2006;
Smith & Zautra, 2004; Steger et al., 2009). This body of
research has focused on subjective judgments of mean-
ingfulness in life, not on people’s qualitative experience
of meaning in life. There is an assumption that judg-
ments of meaning in life are a stable resource. Indeed,
self-reported levels of meaning in life are moderately
heritable (Steger, Hicks, Krueger, & Bouchard, 2011)
and stable across time (Steger & Kashdan, 2007). Mean-
ing is found, meaning is made, and people are motivated
to maintain the meanings they have created (Heine,
Proulx, & Vohs, 2006). People’s motivations for the
establishment and stability of meaning is strong enough
that people report distress when confronted with mean-
ingless stimuli and report elevated well-being when
exposed to stimuli that have some degree of coherence
and meaningfulness to them (e.g. photographs of trees
shown in sequential order with the seasons; Heintzelman,
Trent, & King, in press). If unstable meaning is viewed
as a loss of meaning, then we can rely on theory and
empirical research asserting that reporting high levels of
meaning in life is consistently associated with well-
being, and that people suffer when they report meaning-
lessness (Ryff & Singer, 1998; Steger, 2012; Steger &
Shin, 2010). Research on adverse life events also sug-
gests that experiences that violate people’s beliefs and
comprehension of the world, or their goals and purposes
generate psychological distress and efforts to restore
meaning (Park, 2010; Steger & Park, 2012).
Prior research and theory suggests that instability of
meaning in life that unfolds on a global scale may be
detrimental. However, less evidence exists on the insta-
bility of meaning in life judgments over short-time peri-
ods. Some research has shown that daily reports of
meaning in life are positively related to well-being (King
et al., 2006; Steger & Frazier, 2005; Steger et al., 2006),
and in laboratory settings, people appear to engage in a
variety of compensatory strategies to maintain stable lev-
els of meaning (Hicks & King, 2007; Hicks, Schlegel, &
King, 2010; for review, see Heine et al., 2006). These
compensatory efforts are consistent with theory that
meaning in life is a stable resource that is used to main-
tain well-being and stave off despair (Frankl, 1963). It
remains to be seen whether a person can judge their life
overall as meaningful if their judgments consistently
fluctuate based on changes in internal reactions and
external stimuli. Although levels of meaning in life are
presumed to be stable from day-to-day, this assumption
has not been tested. Thus, it is unclear whether people
whose perceived levels of meaning in life wax and wane
each day generally report high or low psychological and
social functioning.
Research on other adaptive traits provides insight
into whether stability is healthy. Prominent models of
well-being often focus on the importance of developing
stable, enduring resources (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Diener,
2000; Ryff & Singer, 1998). Instability or fragility of
important resources is considered a threat to well-being.
For example, people whose self-esteem is highly variable
endorse less well-being, including a less clearly defined
sense of purpose in life (Paradise & Kernis, 2002). Self-
esteem instability has been linked consistently with the
development of depression (Butler, Hokanson, & Flynn,
1994; Roberts & Gotlib, 1997; Roberts & Monroe,
1994) because people with highly unstable self-esteem
are more likely to rely on transient, externally-controlled
events and fleeting internal states for their sense of
2M.F. Steger and T.B. Kashdan
Downloaded by [Colorado State University], [Michael Steger] at 09:33 13 March 2013

self-worth (Greenier et al., 1999; Kernis, Cornell, Sun,
Berry, & Harlow, 1993). In addition, the interaction of
the intensity and instability of self-esteem often accounts
for additional variance in well-being (Paradise & Kernis,
2002). Thus, both the intensity and the stability of self-
esteem are important in understanding well-being. People
with highly unstable self-esteem are said to feel like their
self-worth is constantly at risk from situation to situation
(Kernis & Paradise, 2002); similar findings have been
found for emotional or affective instability (e.g. Selby &
Joiner, 2009).
In this article, we argue that instability of meaning in
life from day-to-day should have a pattern of detrimental
relationships with well-being and distress. Extending the
concept of instability to meaning in life, people with
highly unstable meaning might feel as if the very
meaningfulness of their existence lives or dies with each
passing moment. Such instability is anathema to meaning
as it is portrayed in psychological accounts (e.g. Frankl,
1963). Meaning in life is discussed as a reservoir of
strength in the face of adversity, enduring motivation in
pursuing long-term aspirations in life, and a consistent
explanatory framework that orders life experiences and
renders them understandable for people. To have such a
profound psychological resource fluctuate with the passing
days ought to undermine the benefits of meaning in life.
Instability of meaning may expose people to higher fre-
quency bouts of meaninglessness or search for meaning,
both of which have been linked to lower well-being. To be
more specific, the way in which meaning in life is typi-
cally assessed is in terms of the subjective level of mean-
ing people judge to exist in their lives. These judgments
presumably reflect the existence of enduring and reliable
resilience, motivational, and cognitive resources, and
instability of these judgments would presumably reflect a
tenuous grip on those resources. Therefore, we hypothe-
sized that people with unstable meaning would experience
less well-being (positive affect, Study 1; the presence of
meaning, search for meaning, and life satisfaction, Studies
1 and 2) and greater distress (negative affect, Study 1;
depressive symptoms, Studies 1 and 2; social anxiety
symptoms, Study 2) than people with stable meaning. In
addition to these indicators of psychological functioning,
we assessed indicators of social functioning, including
social connectedness (Study 1), and relationship satisfac-
tion (Study 2). Assessing social functioning is important
in meaning in life research because when asked, people
most commonly nominate social relationships as their
most important source of meaning in life (e.g. Bar-Tur,
Savaya, & Prager, 2001). If people’s perceptions of mean-
ing in life crystallize around social functioning, then
fluctuations in meaning in life might be of most relevance
to interpersonal difficulties. To our knowledge, these
hypotheses have yet to be tested in prior work.
Furthermore, we believe that stability of meaning in
life judgments should not be considered outside of the
context of intensity of meaning, or people’s levels of
subjectively reported meaning. Although we anticipate
that unstable meaning will be significantly related to
well-being, distress, and social functioning, the signifi-
cant of those relations may not rise above the already
established importance of intensity of meaning. Further-
more, unstable meaning could have very different conse-
quences for someone who experiences high levels of
meaning compared with someone who feels little mean-
ing in life. Thus, we need to consider the potential syn-
ergy between instability and levels of meaning. We
hypothesized that unstable meaning would continue to
demonstrate significant relationships with well –being,
distress, and social functioning even when intensity of
meaning is taken into consideration. Because of the
novel nature of this research, we do not offer hypotheses
about the form of any interaction between instability and
levels. It is still unclear whether stable meaning in life is
better than unstable meaning in life, or whether unstable
meaning is influential regardless of levels of meaning.
The present studies addressed this gap in the literature.
Study 1
To establish the role of instability of meaning in life in
predicting global well-being, researchers must obtain
multiple assessments over a period of time. People’s
reports about meaning in life will vary from day to day,
and the variability of these repeated reports can be cap-
tured using a simple standard deviation of each partici-
pant’s scores over the course of the study. A second
metric of instability used in the present studies is the
mean square successive difference (MSSD). MSSD is
recommended for assessing instability and variability in
experience sampling studies (Jahng, Wood, & Trull,
2008). Whereas standard deviations convey the extent of
overall variability, MSSD addresses the temporal insta-
bility from one observation to the next successive one.
Thus, the MSSD statistic is more sensitive by capturing
daily changes rather than a limited focus on reactivity
over the entire assessment period. We used correlations
to test our initial hypotheses about the relationship
between unstable meaning and well-being, distress, and
social functioning. To test our hypotheses about these
relationships persisting even when intensity of meaning
in considered, as well as to explore whether instability
and level of meaning interact to explain variance in these
variables, we used multiple regression.
Method
Participants
Participants were 103 undergraduate students (Mage =
18.9 years, SD = 2.3; 61.4% women 63.2% European
The Journal of Positive Psychology 3
Downloaded by [Colorado State University], [Michael Steger] at 09:33 13 March 2013

American, 7.0% Asian American, 6.1% Asian, all others
<5%) recruited from introductory psychology classes.
Procedure
Participants were given the link to two internet-based
surveys. One contained global measures of meaning in
life, life satisfaction, positive and negative affect, depres-
sion, and social connectedness. The other contained the
daily report, and required that participants return to the
site every evening between 7:00 pm and 5:00 am to
record their daily responses. Participants completed glo-
bal measures on the first day of the 21-day reporting per-
iod. Approximately 20 valid daily reports were received
from each participant.
Measures
Daily meaning in life. The Daily Meaning Scale (DMS;
Steger, Kashdan, & Oishi, 2008) was used to assess how
meaningful life felt on one specific day. The scale con-
sists of two items (e.g. ‘How meaningful does your life
feel?’to assess the daily presence of meaning. Four
items assessing search for meaning were added to the
DMS. These items parallel those used to assess search
for meaning in the measure of global meaning in life
used in the study (e.g. ‘How much were you searching
for meaning in your life?’). All items were rated from 1
(not at all)to7(absolutely). Research has demonstrated
that the daily presence of meaning scale scores are
reliable and valid (Kashdan & Steger, 2007; Steger,
Kashdan, & Oishi, 2008).
Meaning in life. The Meaning in Life Questionnaire
(MLQ; Steger et al., 2006) was used to assess meaning
in life. The MLQ consists of two five-item subscales that
assess the search for meaning (e.g. ‘I am looking for
something that makes my life feel meaningful’) and the
presence of meaning (e.g. ‘I understand my life’s mean-
ing’). Items are rated from 1 (absolutely untrue)to7
(absolutely true). Research has demonstrated that MLQ
scores are reliable and valid (Steger et al., 2006; Steger
& Kashdan, 2007).
Life satisfaction. The Satisfaction with Life Scale
(SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) was
used to assess life satisfaction. The SWLS consists of 5
items (e.g. ‘The conditions of my life are excellent’),
which are rated from 1 (strongly agree)to7(strongly
disagree). A large body of research has demonstrated
that SWLS scores are reliable and valid (for review, see
Pavot & Diener, 1993).
Positive and negative affect. The Positive and Negative
Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen,
1988) was used to assess positive and negative affect.
The PANAS consists of two 10-item subscales that ask
participants to report on the affect they experienced over
the past two weeks. The first subscale assesses positive
affect (e.g. ‘proud’) and the second assessed negative
affect (e.g. ‘ashamed’). Items are rated from 1 (very
slightly or not at all)to5(extremely). A large amount of
research has demonstrated that PANAS scores are reli-
able and valid (e.g. Watson et al., 1988).
Depression. The Center for Epidemiological Studies –
Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977) was used to
assess levels of depression. The CES-D consists of 20
items (e.g. ‘I had crying spells’) which were rated for
their occurrence during the past week on a scale ranging
from 1 (rarely or none of the time)to4(most or all of
the time). Previous research has demonstrated that CES-
D scores are reliable and valid (Radloff, 1977).
Social connectedness. The Social Connectedness Scale
(Lee & Robbins, 1995) was used to assess feelings of
connection with others. The scale consists of 20 items,
with 10 positively worded (e.g. ‘I feel understood by the
people I know’) and 10 negatively worded (e.g. ‘I have
little sense of togetherness with my peers’), which are
rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree)to6(strongly
agree). Research supports the reliability of the scale
scores (Lee & Robbins, 1995).
Results
Unstable meaning
Descriptive statistics on all measures, including unstable
meaning, are presented in Table 1. Participants’reports
reflected an average variation of somewhat less than one
point on the 1-to-7 rating scale. Both metrics of instabil-
ity of meaning showed significant skewness
(skew
SD
= 0.94, SE = 0.24; skew
MSSD
= 3.11, SE = 0.24)
and kurtosis (kurtosis
SD
= 1.82, SE = 0.47; kurto-
sis
MSSD
= 11.66, SE = 0.47). The peak of the distribution
was around an SD of 0.53, and around an MSSD value
of 0.00. Thus, for most people, daily meaning in life
was rather stable, and MSSD provides a more conserva-
tive estimate of instability. Despite the variation from a
normal distribution, we elected not to transform the data.
This is the first study of its kind, and preserving the
untransformed data increases its descriptiveness and
increases the likelihood of generalizability. We recognize
that the observed relationships among the variables may
be attenuated in the present data.
Analysis of variances by race were significant for
negative affect, depression, and social connectedness
(Fs = 2.43 to 3.74, ps < 0.05). Tukey’sbpost hoc test
indicated that the 11 participants who identified as either
African American or ‘other/multiracial’reported lower
levels of negative affect than the 11 participants who
identified as either Asian or African American; in addi-
4M.F. Steger and T.B. Kashdan
Downloaded by [Colorado State University], [Michael Steger] at 09:33 13 March 2013

tion, the three participants who identified as African
American reported higher levels of social connectedness
than the five participants who identified as Asian Ameri-
can. There were no other significant relations between
demographic and well-being variables.
Correlations of unstable meaning and well-being
Correlations of unstable meaning showed that people
whose ratings of meaning in life fluctuated the most
from day-to-day reported lower levels of average daily
meaning and life satisfaction, and higher levels of nega-
tive affect and depression (see Table 2). Also, as pre-
dicted, people with more unstable meaning reported a
lesser degree of social connectedness.
Synergy between instability and level of meaning
Upon including average level of daily meaning and
instability of meaning in step 1 of our hierarchical regres-
sion model, unstable meaning only was significantly
related to negative affect and depression. Average levels
of daily meaning were significantly related to global
meaning, life satisfaction, positive affect, depression, and
social connectedness (see Table 3).
Upon adding the interaction between level and insta-
bility of meaning in step 2 of our regression model, the
interaction accounted for significant additional variance
in global meaning (β=0.21, p< 0.05) and positive
affect (β=0.12, p< 0.05). To understand the nature of
these moderation effects, we examined simple slopes.
Simple slopes analyses characterize the shape of interac-
tions by plotting relationships between variables at ±1SD
as slopes. In the present simple slopes analyses, the
slopes themselves were marginally significant, so we
described the pattern of slopes rather than the signifi-
cance of individual slopes themselves. There was a con-
sistent tendency seen for both global meaning and
positive affect. At high levels of daily meaning, the rela-
tionship between unstable meaning and global meaning
was generally negative (β=0.18, p= 0.21); at low lev-
els, this relationship was generally positive (β= 0.29,
Table 2. Correlations among measures, Study 1.
1 234 5 6 78910
(1) Unstable meaning –SD
(2) Unstable meaning –MSSD 0.82
(3) Daily meaning 0.38 0.14
(4) Daily searching 0.08 0.16 0.15
(5). The presence of meaning 0.22+ 0.05 0.61 0.32
(6) Search for meaning 0.15 0.02 0.14 0.46 0.26
(7) Life satisfaction 0.34 0.17 0.43 0.09 0.33 0.13
(8) Positive affect 0.14 0.04 0.45 0.09 0.49 0.11 0.46
(9) Negative affect 0.37 0.20 0.24 0.05 0.19+ 0.18+ 0.34 0.11
(10) Depression 0.36 0.20 0.35 0.01 0.27 0.18+ 0.49 0.32 0.68
(11) Social connectedness 0.21 0.08 0.35 09 0.26 0.18+ 0.56 0.38 0.50 0.68
Notes: N= 103, SD = standard deviation, MSSD = mean square successive difference. Correlations in boldface are significant at
p< 0.05. Correlations significant at p< 0.10 are denoted by ‘+’.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for measures used, Studies 1–2.
Study 1 (N= 103) Study 2 (N= 55)
MSD αMSD α
Unstable meaning 0.80 0.38 0.86 0.48
Daily meaning 10.40 2.24 0.97 9.90 2.40 0.98
Daily searching 12.35 5.56 0.98 15.45 5.57 0.98
The presence of meaning
a
17.95 3.78 0.81 24.17 6.07 0.88
Search for meaning 22.26 4.48 0.88 24.26 6.74 0.92
Life satisfaction 24.89 5.27 0.87 25.35 6.17 0.91
Positive affect 34.43 5.65 0.85
Negative affect 21.38 6.92 0.87
Depression 16.15 9.65 0.88 15.23 8.48 0.86
Social connectedness 87.98 16.66 0.94
Relationship satisfaction
b
29.38 4.17 0.82
Social anxiety 41.67 14.20 0.85
Notes:
a
Due to clerical error, one item was omitted from the presence of meaning scale in Study 2.
b
n= 29 due to its relevance only to people in committed relationships.
The Journal of Positive Psychology 5
Downloaded by [Colorado State University], [Michael Steger] at 09:33 13 March 2013

p= 0.08). Similarly, at high levels of daily meaning, the
relationship between people with unstable meaning and
positive affect was generally negative (β=0.14,
p= 0.28); at low levels, it was generally positive
(β= 0.27, p= 0.08). The difference between the relation-
ships at high and low levels of daily meaning in life sug-
gest that unstable meaning has a subtle undermining
influence when one’s life feels meaningful from day-to-
day, compared to an enhancing effect when one’s life
feels meaningless. These interactions can be looked at in
a different way, however. As Figure 1 (Panels A and B)
suggests, the happiest people (in terms of global meaning
and positive affect) tend to report high, stable levels of
daily meaning in life and positive affect; the least happy
people tend to report low, stable levels of daily meaning
in life and positive affect. The resemblance of these
interactions to those reported between levels and instabil-
ity of self-esteem is striking (cf. Paradise & Kernis,
2002, Figure 2, p. 356).
Discussion
In Study 1, unstable meaning in life was related to less
well-being and more distress. People whose grasp on
meaning in life is most tenuous also report less of a
sense of being connected to people around them, sup-
porting the idea that dissatisfaction with important
sources of meaning may contribute to its fragility. At the
same time, many of these relations did not persist above
and beyond the influence of daily levels of meaning in
life. Exceptions were noted in that significant, positive
relations were observed between unstable meaning and
negative affect, as well as depression above and beyond
average levels of daily meaning. This finding suggests
that unstable meaning may represent a unique source of
distress for some people. In addition, moderation tests
revealed that the interaction between instability and lev-
els of daily meaning was significantly related to both
global meaning in life and positive affect. The form of
these interactions suggests that the possible impact of
Table 3. Interaction of instability and levels of daily meaning in life, Study 1.
bSE
b
βAdj. R
2
ΔR
2
F
The presence of meaning
Unstable meaning 0.20 0.40 0.05 0.35 0.37 18.68
⁄⁄⁄
Daily meaning levels 2.47 0.42 .63
⁄⁄⁄
Unstable Daily meaning levels 0.88 0.41 0.21
⁄
0.38 0.04 4.46
⁄
Search for meaning
Unstable meaning 0.40 0.50 0.09 0.01 0.03 1.41
Daily meaning levels 0.47 0.51 0.10
Unstable Daily meaning levels 0.62 0.53 0.12 0.01 0.02 1.39
Life satisfaction
Unstable meaning 0.24 0.13 0.19
+
0.21 0.23 13.95
⁄⁄⁄
Daily meaning levels 0.47 0.13 0.36
⁄⁄⁄
Unstable Daily meaning levels 0.10 0.13 0.07 0.21 0.01 0.61
Positive affect
Unstable meaning 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.19 0.20 12.30
⁄⁄⁄
Daily meaning levels 0.25 0.05 0.45
⁄⁄⁄
Unstable Daily meaning levels 0.11 0.06 0.18
⁄
0.21 0.03 4.10
⁄
Negative affect
Unstable meaning 0.21 0.07 0.32
⁄⁄⁄
0.13 0.15 8.43
⁄⁄⁄
Daily meaning levels 0.09 0.07 0.13
Unstable Daily meaning levels 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.12 0.00 0.12
Depression
Unstable meaning 0.12 0.05 0.27
⁄⁄
0.16 0.18 10.72
⁄⁄⁄
Daily meaning levels 0.11 0.05 0.24
⁄
Unstable Daily meaning levels 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.16 0.00 0.03
Social connectedness
Unstable meaning 0.01 0.36 0.00 0.06 0.08 3.26
⁄
Daily meaning levels 0.78 0.33 0.29
⁄
Unstable Daily meaning levels 0.51 0.34 0.17 0.07 0.03 2.32
⁄
p< 0.05,
⁄⁄
p< 0.01,
⁄⁄⁄
p< 0.001,
+
p< 0.10.
Notes: N= 103. Unstable meaning refers to SD of daily meaning reports. Adj. R
2
,ΔR
2
,Fshown from Step 1, then from Step 2. All
coefficients presented are from Step 2.
6M.F. Steger and T.B. Kashdan
Downloaded by [Colorado State University], [Michael Steger] at 09:33 13 March 2013

unstable meaning in life depends on how much meaning
people experience from day-to-day.
With regard to daily search for meaning, although
there was a large, positive correlation with global search
for meaning, and a medium, negative correlation with
global presence of meaning; other correlations were non-
significant. This result may indicate that daily search for
meaning is not as detrimental as search for meaning at
the dispositional level. Of note, daily search for meaning
was not significantly related to instability of meaning. It
seems unlikely that people search for meaning more
when their grip on meaning loosens for a day, or that
people who frequently search for meaning are more
likely to relinquish their grasp of whatever meaning they
possess.
Study 2
One of the conclusions suggested in Study 1 was that
people with unstable meaning may experience less social
connectedness. This was originally proposed as being dri-
ven by dissatisfaction with an important source of mean-
ing. However, attaining high levels of meaning appeared
more important than attaining stability of meaning, under-
mining the idea that relationships as a source of meaning,
broadly speaking, are involved with the stability of mean-
ing. Perhaps global assessments of how well-connected
one feels to other people is too imprecise of a measure to
connect with dynamic fluctuations in meaning. Deficits in
specific areas of social functioning might predispose
someone to more fragile meaning. Therefore, we assessed
two additional dimensions of social functioning: relation-
ship satisfaction and social anxiety. Within existing inti-
mate relationships people’s satisfaction is a broadly
representative judgment, capturing their overall evalua-
tions of the relationship, and can be considered to repre-
sent the overall success people have in forming high-
quality intimate relationships (Hendrick, 1988). Social
anxiety represents people’s concern about being scruti-
nized, negatively evaluated, and rejected by other people,
leading to avoidance behavior and a lower likelihood of
positive social and non-social experiences (Kashdan,
Weeks, & Savostyanova, 2011). Thus, Study 2 examined
relations between unstable meaning and propensity to
form close relationships, satisfaction within existing close
relationships, and social anxiety.
Method
Participants
Participants were 55 undergraduate students (Mage =
20.0 years, SD = 3.9; 56.5% women; 61.3% European
American, 12.9% Asian American, 11.2% African
American, all others <5%) recruited from introductory
psychology classes.
Procedure
Procedures followed to obtain daily and global reports
were identical to those followed in Study 1. The only
differences were that participants provided daily reports
for 28 consecutive days rather than 21, and to
accommodate measures of relationship satisfaction and
social anxiety, the PANAS was not included.
Approximately 23 valid daily reports were received from
each participant.
Measures
Study 3 used several of the same measures as were used
in Studies 1 and 2, including the DMS, MLQ, SWLS,
and CESD.
Relationship satisfaction. The Relationship Assessment
Scale (Hendrick, 1988) was used to assess relationship
satisfaction within existing romantic relationships. The
scale consists of two negatively worded items (e.g. ‘How
often do you wish you had not gotten into this
relationship?’) and five positively worded items (e.g. ‘In
general, how satisfied are you with your relationship?’),
which are rated on a scale from 1 (low satisfaction)to7
(high satisfaction). Research supports the reliability and
validity of scale scores (Hendrick, 1988).
Social anxiety. The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale
(Mattick & Clarke, 1998) was used to assess general
tendencies to be fearful of, and avoid, social situations.
The scale consists of 19 items (e.g. ‘When mixing socially
Panel A
Panel B
Figure 1. Interaction of average daily levels of meaning in life
and degree of instability in predicting global meaning in life
and positive affect, Study 1.
The Journal of Positive Psychology 7
Downloaded by [Colorado State University], [Michael Steger] at 09:33 13 March 2013

I am uncomfortable.’) which are rated on a scale of 0 (not
at all)to4(extremely). Research supports the reliability
and validity of scale scores (Mattick & Clarke, 1998).
Results
Descriptive findings
Descriptive statistics on all measures are presented in
Table 4. Participants’reports were similar to Study 1
with an average variation of somewhat less than one
point on the 1-to-7 rating scale. As in Study 1, both
metrics of instability of meaning showed significant
skewness (skew
SD
= 1.22, SE = 0.33; skew
MSSD
= 4.43,
SE = 0.33) and kurtosis (kurtosis
SD
= 4.16, SE = 0.65; kur-
tosis
MSSD
= 25.21, SE = 0.65). Also as in Study 1, the
peak of the distribution was around an SD of 0.53, and
around an MSSD value of 0.00. There were no signifi-
cant relations between demographic and other variables.
Correlations of unstable meaning and well-being
As in Study 1, correlations of unstable meaning showed
that people whose ratings of meaning in life fluctuated
the most from day-to-day reported lower levels of life
satisfaction, and greater depressive symptoms. Also,
people with more unstable meaning reported less
relationship satisfaction.
Synergy between instability and level of meaning
Upon including average level of daily meaning and
instability of meaning in step 1 of our hierarchical
regression model, significant relations only were found
with search for meaning and relationship satisfaction (see
Table 5). In contrast to Study 1, unstable meaning was
not significantly related to depressive symptoms. Average
levels of daily meaning were significantly related to glo-
bal meaning and life satisfaction.
Upon adding the interaction between level and insta-
bility of meaning in step 2 of our regression model, the
interaction accounted for significant additional variance
in global meaning and search for meaning. To under-
stand the nature of these moderation effects, we exam-
ined simple slopes. The pattern among these slopes
suggested that at high levels of daily meaning, people
with unstable meaning reported lower levels of global
meaning in life (β=0.44, p= 0.07); at low levels, they
reported higher levels of global meaning in life (β= 0.26,
p= 0.09). The form of this interaction (Figure 2, Panel
A) appears very similar to the form of the interaction
found in Study 1 (Figure 1, Panel A).
With regard to search for meaning, at high levels of
daily meaning, people with high levels of daily meaning
reported a stronger positive relation between unstable
meaning and global search for meaning (β= 0.90,
p= 0.00) than did people with low levels of daily mean-
ing (β= 0.20, p= 0.26). This interaction is presented in
Figure 2 (Panel B).
Discussion
As with Study 1, unstable meaning was related to lower
well-being. One of the aims of Study 2 was to provide a
more in-depth investigation of how social factors were
relevant to unstable meaning. On a bivariate level, there
were indications that relationship satisfaction was nega-
tively related to unstable meaning. Regression analyses
revealed that the instability of daily meaning was more
closely tied to satisfaction in romantic relationships than
was the level of daily meaning.
In both Studies 1 and 2, the interaction between lev-
els and instability of daily meaning predicted global
meaning in life. This suggests a fairly reliable relation-
ship. The form of the interaction was similar across the
two studies, and was similar to the form of interactions
observed between levels and instability of self-esteem
(Paradise & Kernis, 2002). Although the interaction
between unstable meaning and search for meaning was
not significant in Study 1, it was significant in Study 2.
One idea about the relation between experiencing and
Table 4. Correlations among measures, Study 2.
1 2345 6 7 89
(1) Unstable Meaning –SD
(2) Unstable Meaning –MSSD 0.87
(3) Daily Meaning 0.61 0.43
(4) Daily Searching 0.01 0.11 0.31
(5) The presence of meaning 0.24+ 0.05 0.53 0.03
(6) Search for meaning 0.27+ 0.04 0.19 0.48 0.30
(7) Life Satisfaction 0.57 0.58 0.56 0.07 0.38 0.28
(8) Depression 0.33 0.09 0.51 0.05 0.53 0.31 0.42
(9) Relationship satisfaction
a
0.52 0.45 0.38 0.05 0.23 0.35+ 0.48 .35+
(10) Social anxiety 0.04 0.08 0.16 0.01 0.49 0.30 0.25+ 0.54 0.23
a
n= 29 due to its relevance only to people in committed relationships
Notes: N= 55, SD = standard deviation, MSSD = mean square successive difference. Correlations in boldface are significant at p< .05.
Correlations significant at p< .10 are denoted by ‘+’.
8M.F. Steger and T.B. Kashdan
Downloaded by [Colorado State University], [Michael Steger] at 09:33 13 March 2013

searching for meaning is that as the experience of mean-
ing becomes threatened, people are motivated to search
for meaning (Steger, Kashdan, Sullivan et al., 2008).
Study 2 supported this idea, as the interaction between
instability and levels of searching for meaning suggested
that this might happen primarily among people who
experience high daily levels of meaning. Perhaps people
who chronically seek meaning in their lives are more
motivated to do so when they experience fleeting
glimpses of what having meaning might be like, only to
feel it slip away. Future work can use person-centric
approaches such as latent class analyses to determine
which people and under what conditions is the search
for meaning adaptive.
General discussion
One common element of psychological disorders is the
inability to effectively regulate emotions and self-evalua-
tions in different contexts (American Psychiatric Associ-
ation., 2000; Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010). Similarly,
several theories of well-being prioritize the element of
stability or equilibrium. That is, well-being is best when
it is an enduring, reliable resource, marked by
consistently positive feelings and perceptions of one’s
self and livelihood (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryff & Singer,
Table 5. Interaction of instability and levels of daily meaning in life, Study 2.
bSE
b
βAdj. R
2
ΔR
2
F
The presence of meaning
Unstable meaning .54 0.98 0.09 0.27 0.30 9.79
⁄⁄⁄
Daily meaning levels 2.48 0.96 0.42
⁄⁄
Unstable Daily meaning levels 2.04 0.60 0.44
⁄⁄⁄
0.40 0.14 11.46
⁄⁄⁄
Search for meaning
Unstable meaning 3.28 1.20 0.55
⁄⁄
0.07 0.07 1.84
Daily meaning levels 1.41 1.17 0.23
Unstable Daily meaning levels 2.08 0.73 0.43
⁄⁄
0.16 0.14 8.07
⁄⁄
Life satisfaction
Unstable meaning 1.40 1.05 0.23 0.36 0.38 14.25
⁄⁄⁄
Daily meaning levels 2.63 1.03 0.42
⁄⁄
Unstable Daily meaning levels 1.09 0.64 0.22
+
0.38 0.04 2.85
+
Depression
Unstable meaning 1.17 1.50 0.16 0.22 0.25 6.92
⁄⁄
Daily meaning levels 2.79 1.50 0.37
+
Unstable Daily meaning levels 1.45 0.91 0.25 0.25 0.05 2.56
Relationship satisfaction
Unstable meaning 2.35 1.23 0.41
⁄
0.24 0.31 4.70
⁄
Daily meaning levels 1.14 1.10 0.22
Unstable Daily meaning levels 0.36 1.39 0.04 0.21 0.00 0.04
Social anxiety
Unstable meaning 1.26 1.26 0.22 0.03 0.07 1.68
Daily meaning levels 1.73 1.23 0.29
Unstable Daily meaning levels 0.40 0.77 0.09 0.01 0.01 2.02
⁄
p< 0.05,
⁄⁄
p< 0.01,
⁄⁄⁄
p< 0.001,
+
p< 0.10.
Notes: N= 55. Unstable meaning refers to SD of daily meaning reports. R
2
,ΔR
2
,Fshown from Step 1, then from Step 2. All coeffi-
cients presented are from Step 2.
Panel A
Panel B
Figure 2. Interaction of average daily levels of meaning in life
and degree of instability in predicting global meaning in life
and global search for meaning in life, Study 2.
The Journal of Positive Psychology 9
Downloaded by [Colorado State University], [Michael Steger] at 09:33 13 March 2013

1998). Of the two principal dimensions, intensity and
stability, the intensity of positive feelings and perceptions
has received more attention than the stability. Yet,
research supports the idea that these are separate ele-
ments (e.g. Roberts & Monroe, 1992), with a persuasive
body of research growing around understanding the sta-
bility of self-esteem judgments (e.g. Kernis et al., 1993;
Paradise & Kernis, 2002). In the present set of studies,
for the first time, the question of intensity versus stability
was posed in the context of meaning in life.
Meaning in life is emerging as an important variable,
and knowing whether intensity or stability of meaning –
or both –are important to human functioning might aid
assessment and intervention strategies for improving
meaning, and by extension, well-being. In the present
studies, we focused on people’s reports of the level of
meaning in life they experienced from day to day. Daily
levels of meaning provided an indicator of intensity of
meaningfulness, and both the raw variance in daily
reports of meaning in life (i.e. standard deviation) and
the deviation of one day’s reports of meaning in life
from the previous day’s reports (i.e. mean square of suc-
cessive difference) provided indicators of stability of
meaning in life levels. In the two studies presented here,
daily levels of meaning in life showed consistent and
expected correlations with indicators of positive psycho-
logical and social functioning. The pattern of relations
observed for stability of meaning was less robust than
that observed for intensity. Nonetheless, our results make
a case for including stability of meaning as an indicator
of overall well-being. People who reported greater day-
to-day instability of meaning in life endorsed less global
meaning, positive affect, life satisfaction, social connect-
edness, and relationship satisfaction, and reported greater
negative affect and depressive symptoms.
One hypothesis for these relations was that unstable
meaning might represent problems in the most com-
monly endorsed source of meaning: relationships. Unsta-
ble meaning and social connectedness were negatively
related on a bivariate level, but in tests of construct spec-
ificity, average daily levels of meaning were more impor-
tant. This suggested that perhaps broad feelings of
connectedness were related to the intensity of meaning,
but perhaps problems with more specific social attributes
that might help foster or inhibit the creation of satisfying,
intimate relations could destabilize meaning. For exam-
ple, romantic relationship satisfaction was more closely
tied to instability of meaning compared with level of
meaning. The present studies are, essentially, correla-
tional studies, which leaves open both the possibility that
people question their relationships more strenuously
when their meaning in life has become unhinged, and
that problems in romantic relationships cause instability
in daily meaning in life. Longitudinal research in which
both meaning in life and relationship satisfaction are
assessed daily would be able to identify the temporal
sequence underlying the relation between unstable mean-
ing and relationship satisfaction.
From a technical perspective, a stronger pattern of
correlations was observed for SD as a measure of insta-
bility than for MSSD. MSSD does a better job of captur-
ing the temporal dependence of successive daily reports
than SD (Jahng et al., 2008). The two instability metrics
were highly correlated, yet their minordivergence in
correlations with psychological and social functioning
suggests two possible scenarios in the present data. In
both cases, we attempt to identify fluctuations in the data
that could decouple raw variability from temporal insta-
bility. First, a participant could report a quantum shift in
daily levels of meaning in life –for example, from sev-
eral days of very high levels to a consistent run of very
low levels –creating a wide range of scores, with only
one instance when one day’s reports were highly deviant
from the previous day’s reports. People with higher SDs
might have a larger ‘leap’in daily meaning in life in this
example, which should theoretically have strong implica-
tions for their psychological and social functioning.
Second, a participant could experience a steady linear
trend in daily reports. Such trends would create variabil-
ity in their daily scores without creating large deviations
from one day to the next. In fact, such linear trends do
not increase MSSD in the same way they increase SD
(Jahng et al., 2008). A random pattern of responding
would not result in a decoupling of SD and MSSD
because variations in day-to-day scores would increase
both SD and MSSD. Thus, despite their similarities, both
SD and MSSD provide unique information about
longitudinal data.
Transcending either/or
In tests of construct specificity, intensity of daily mean-
ing was more consistently related to well-being than sta-
bility. There were several exceptions including life
satisfaction, negative affect, depressive symptoms, search
for meaning, and relationship satisfaction. The failure to
replicate these instances in which unstable meaning was
more strongly related to well-being than daily meaning
from Study 1 to Study 2 may be rooted in the lack of
power yielded by the small sample size in Study 2. The
regression coefficients were of comparable size for life
satisfaction (0.19 and 0.23, Study 1 and Study 2,
respectively) and depressive symptoms (0.27 and 0.16,
Study 1 and Study 2, respectively). However, the differ-
ence in magnitude of the regression coefficients between
unstable meaning and global search for meaning from
Study 3 (0.55) and Study 2 (0.09) begs a different expla-
nation. One possibility is that Study 2 collected a larger
number of daily reports (28) than Study 1 (21), poten-
tially capturing greater variability in daily scores.
Despite these differences across studies, it seems
likely that unstable meaning is a significant detractor
10 M.F. Steger and T.B. Kashdan
Downloaded by [Colorado State University], [Michael Steger] at 09:33 13 March 2013

from well-being. Future research should explore whether
there are boundary conditions that limit its effect.
Unstable meaning could manifest as frequent –but small
–deviations from typical levels, or rare –but precipitous
–drops of meaning. It is not clear which would be
worse, or whether the magnitude of fluctuations of
meaning is related to frequency. It certainly seems
probable that the worst case scenario would be frequent,
cataclysmic bouts with what Frankl (1963) termed
‘existential vacuum.’
The examination of the interaction between level
and instability of meaning is another novel contribu-
tion of the present research. This interaction was
related to global meaning, search for meaning, and
positive affect. The most consistent effect was for glo-
bal meaning. In both studies, stable meaning was more
common at the ends of the spectrum and instability
was more common in the center of the spectrum. Peo-
ple who globally evaluated their lives as being mean-
ingful tended to have highly meaningful days, across
time. The reverse was true for people who globally
evaluated their lives as meaningless. In this sense,
instability seemed to hurt people who reported high
levels of global meaning; their average levels of daily
meaning were lower than would be expected. Again,
the converse appeared true; average levels of daily
meaning were higher than expected among low global
meaning people whose daily ratings were unstable.
This same pattern was observed for positive affect in
Study 1. One implication is that when people report
high global meaning, efforts could be made to help
them consolidate their meaning in life, whether that
means investing in sources of meaning, or stabilizing
links between meaning and more durable foundations,
such as values or long-term relationships (e.g. family).
At the other end of the spectrum, perhaps people low
in meaning could be encouraged to be more flexible
and engage in curious exploration of potentially
meaningful experiences (Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010;
Kashdan & Steger, 2007). An alternative implication is
that instability of meaning might be an adaptive strat-
egy for people who find themselves experiencing
meaninglessness. In this interpretation, unstable
meaning may represent people’s efforts to transcend
their meaninglessness and initiate a search for more
meaning.
The analyses conducted in the present studies suggest
a thought-provoking pattern. When controlling for daily
levels of meaning, day-to-day instability of meaning in
life reports were fairly consistently related to negative
indicators of psychological functioning such as negative
affect and depression. Yet, the interaction of daily levels
and instability of meaning was only significantly related
to positive indicators of psychological and social func-
tioning. More research is needed to verify whether this
pattern is stable and generalizable. In the absence of
additional research, we speculate that negative affect and
depression undermine the consistent experience of
meaning in life, fostering instability, and in turn, being
exacerbated by unstable meaning. We also speculate that
stability of meaning is insufficient to create positive psy-
chological and social functioning. One can enduringly
experience life as empty and meaningless. The effects of
stable meaning in life likely depend on a person’s current
level of meaning in life to understand positive indicators
of well-being.
Limitations
The internet-based methods in Studies 1 and 2 may have
introduced specific limitations to the exploration of
unstable meaning. For example, participants might have
been less interested to log onto the website on days that
were particularly distressing, which could reduce the
number of low meaning days that were reported. This
would reduce variance in meaning scores and attenuate
our index of unstable meaning and all subsequent corre-
lations with this predictor.
Among other limitations, such as the use of conve-
nience samples and self-report measures, the current pro-
ject was limited in its ability to control for third variables
that might account for the relations observed. For exam-
ple, neuroticism has been characterized as a dispositional
propensity to exhibit negative behaviors, emotions, and
thoughts on a daily basis (Gunthert, Cohen, & Armeli,
1999), and has been characterized as emotional instability
(e.g. Saucier, 1994). The cumulative effect of such nega-
tive experiences could undermine the stability of meaning
in life. It is also possible that a personality trait like neu-
roticism could be responsible for the similar ways in
which unstable self-esteem, unstable affect, and unstable
meaning hinder the experience of well-being and foster
distress (e.g. Kernis et al., 1993). Simultaneously assess-
ing and modeling all of these variables would provide
insight into whether instability of evaluations of one’s
self, one’s affective tenor, and one’s life share common
roots in personality.
Conclusions
Meaning in life is usually thought of as a resource
people find and build upon: a foundation for flourish-
ing. The value of stability is implicit in all major
accounts of meaning. The present investigation is an
initial effort to identify whether the subjective experi-
ence of meaning in life would still be a valuable asset
if experiences of meaningfulness were ephemeral and
unstable. Across both studies, day-to-day instability of
meaning in life reports was associated with less well-
being and more distress. Several similarities emerged
across these studies, but also some differences that
suggest complexities in the interaction of instability
and levels of meaning in life. There is ample room
The Journal of Positive Psychology 11
Downloaded by [Colorado State University], [Michael Steger] at 09:33 13 March 2013

for improving understanding of how having an overly
tenuous grasp on meaning in life plays into overall
well-being. Due to the prominent role of meaning in
well-being theory and research, it is important to con-
tinue to study what happens when meaning is frag-
mented on the ‘ephemera of now.’
Acknowledgments
Research funding for Todd B. Kashdan was provided by the
Center for Consciousness and Transformation at George Mason
University.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and sta-
tistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.): Text revision.
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Bar-Tur, L., Savaya, R., & Prager, E. (2001). Sources of mean-
ing in life for young and old Israeli Jews and Arabs. Journal
of Aging Studies, 15, 253–269.
Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings of life. New York, NY:
Guilford.
Bonebright, C. A., Clay, D. L., & Ankenmann, R. D. (2000).
The relationship of workaholism with work-life conflict, life
satisfaction, and purpose in life. Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 47, 469–477.
Brassai, L., Piko, B. F., & Steger, M. F. (2011). Meaning in life:
Is it a protective factor for adolescents’psychological health?
International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 18,44–51.
Butler, A. C., Hokanson, J. E., & Flynn, H. A. (1994). A com-
parison of self-esteem lability and low trait self-esteem as
vulnerability factors for depression. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 66, 166–177.
Chamberlain, K., & Zika, S. (1988). Measuring meaning in
life: An examination of three scales. Personality and Individ-
ual Differences, 9, 589–596.
Debats, D. L., van der Lubbe, P. M., & Wezeman, F. R. A.
(1993). On the psychometric properties of the Life Regard
Index (LRI): A measure of meaningful life. Personality and
Individual Differences, 14, 337–345.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’and ‘why’of
goal pursuit: Human needs and the self-determination of
behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Delany, S. R. (1975). Dhalgren. New York, NY: Bantam
Books.
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happi-
ness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychol-
ogist, 55,34–43.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985).
The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 49,71–75.
Frankl, V. E. (1963). Man’s search for meaning: An introduction
to logotherapy. New York, NY: Washington Square Press.
Greenier, K. D., Kernis, M. H., McNamara, C. W., Waschull,
S. B., Berry, A. J., Herlocker, C. E., et al. (1999). Individual
differences in reactivity to daily events: Examining the roles
of stability and levels of self-esteem. Journal of Personality,
67, 185–207.
Gunthert, K., Cohen, L. H., & Armeli, S. (1999). The role of
neuroticism in daily stress and coping. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 77, 1087–1100.
Harlow, L. L., Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1986).
Depression, self-derogation, substance use, and suicide idea-
tion: Lack of purpose in life as a mediational factor. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 42,5–21.
Heine, S. J., Proulx, T., & Vohs, K. D. (2006). The meaning
maintenance model: On the coherence of social motivations.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10,88–110.
Heintzelman, S. J., Trent, J., & King, L. A. (in press). Encoun-
ters with objective coherence and the experience of meaning
in life. Psychological Science.
Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satis-
faction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50,93–98.
Hicks, J. A., & King, L. A. (2007). Meaning in life and seeing
the big picture: Positive affect and global focus. Cognition
and Emotion, 21, 1577–1584.
Hicks, J. A., Schlegel, R. J., & King, L. A. (2010). Social
threats, happiness, and the dynamics of meaning in life
judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36,
1305–1317.
Ishida, R., & Okada, M. (2006). The effects of a firm purpose
in life on anxiety and sympathetic nervous activity caused
by emotional stress: Assessment by psycho-physiological
method. Stress and Health, 22, 275–281.
Jahng, S., Wood, P. K., & Trull, T. J. (2008). Analysis of affec-
tive instability in ecological momentary assessment: Indices
using successive difference and group comparison via multi-
level modeling. Psychological Methods, 13, 354–375.
Kashdan, T. B., & Rottenberg, J. (2010). Psychological flexibil-
ity as a fundamental aspect of health. Clinical Psychology
Review, 30, 865–878.
Kashdan, T. B., & Steger, M. F. (2007). Curiosity and stable
and dynamic pathways to wellness: Traits, states, and every-
day behaviors. Motivation and Emotion, 31, 159–173.
Kashdan, T. B., Weeks, J. W., & Savostyanova, A. A. (2011).
Whether, how, and when social anxiety shapes positive experi-
ences and events: A self-regulatory framework and treatment
implications. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 786–799.
Kernis, M. H., Cornell, D. P., Sun, C., Berry, A., & Harlow, T.
(1993). There’s more to self-esteem than whether it’s high or
low: The importance of stability of self-esteem. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1190–1204.
Kernis, M. H., & Paradise, A. (2002). Distinguishing between
secure and fragile forms of high self-esteem. In E. L. Deci
& R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination
research (pp. 339–361). Rochester: University of Rochester
Press.
King, L. A., Hicks, J. A., Krull, J. L., & Del Gaiso, A. K.
(2006). Positive affect and the experience of meaning in life.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 179–196.
King, L. A., & Napa, C. K. (1998). What makes a life
good? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,
156–165.
Krause, N. (2004). Stressors arising in highly valued roles,
meaning in life, and the physical health status of older
adults. Journal of Gerontology B: Psychological Sciences
and Social Sciences, 59, S287–S297.
Lee, R. M., & Robbins, S. B. (1995). Measuring belongingness:
The social connectedness and the social assurance scales.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 232–241.
Lent, R. W. (2004). Toward a unifying theoretical and practical
perspective on well-being and psychosocial adjustment.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 482–509.
12 M.F. Steger and T.B. Kashdan
Downloaded by [Colorado State University], [Michael Steger] at 09:33 13 March 2013

Maddi, S. R. (1970). The search for meaning. In M. Page
(Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 137–186).
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Mattick, R. P., & Clarke, J. C. (1998). Development and vali-
dation of measures of social phobia scrutiny fear and social
interaction anxiety. Behavior and Research Therapy, 36,
455–470.
McKnight, P. E., & Kashdan, T. B. (2009). Purpose in life as a
system that creates and sustains health and well-being: An
integrative, testable theory. Review of General Psychology,
13, 242–251.
O’Conner, B. P., & Vallerand, R. J. (1998). Psychological
adjustment variables as predictors of mortality among nurs-
ing home residents. Psychology and Aging, 13, 368–374.
Paradise, A. W., & Kernis, M. H. (2002). Self-esteem and psy-
chological well-being: Implications of fragile self-esteem.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21, 345–361.
Park, C. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An
integrative review of meaning making and its effects on
adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin,
136, 257–301.
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with
life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5, 164.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES–D scale: A self-report depres-
sion scale for research in the general population. Applied
Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.
Roberts, J. E., & Gotlib, I. H. (1997). Temporal variability in
global self-esteem and specific self-evaluation as prospective
predictors of emotional distress: Specificity in predictors and
outcome. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 521–529.
Roberts, J. E., & Monroe, S. M. (1992). Vulnerable self-esteem
and depressive symptoms: Prospective findings comparing
three alternative conceptualizations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 62, 804–812.
Roberts, J. E., & Monroe, S. M. (1994). A multidimensional
model of self-esteem in depression. Clinical Psychology
Review, 14, 161–181.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory
and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social develop-
ment, and well-being. American psychologist, 55, 68.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explora-
tions of the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081.
Ryff, C. D., Love, G. D., Urry, H. L., Muller, D., Rosenkranz, M.
A., Friedman, E. M., et al. (2006). Psychological well-being
and ill-being: Do they have distinct or mirrored biological cor-
relates? Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 75,85–95.
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (1998). The contours of positive
human health. Psychological Inquiry, 9,1–28.
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Gold-
berg’s Unipolar Big Five Markers. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 63, 506–516.
Selby, E. A., & Joiner, T. E. (2009). Cascades of emotion: The
emergence of borderline personality disorder from emotional
and behavioral dysregulation. Review of General Psychology,
13, 219–229.
Smith, B. W., & Zautra, A. J. (2004). The role of purpose in
life in recovery from knee surgery. International Journal of
Behavior Medicine, 11, 197–202.
Steger, M. F. (2009). Meaning in life. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), Oxford
handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 679–687).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Steger, M. F. (2012). Experiencing meaning in life: Optimal
functioning at the nexus of spirituality, psychopathology, and
well-being. In P. T. P. Wong & P. S. Fry (Eds.), The human
quest for meaning (2nd ed, pp. 165–184). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Steger, M. F., & Frazier, P. (2005). Meaning in life: One link
in the chain from religion to well-being. Journal of Counsel-
ing Psychology, 52, 574–582.
Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The
Meaning in Life Questionnaire: Assessing the presence of
and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 53,80–93.
Steger, M. F., Hicks, B. M., Krueger, R. F., & Bouchard, T. V.
Jr. (2011). Genetic and environmental influences and covari-
ance among meaning in life and spirituality. Journal of Posi-
tive Psychology, 6, 181–191.
Steger, M. F., & Kashdan, T. B. (2007). Stability and specific-
ity of meaning in life and life satisfaction over one year.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 161–179.
Steger, M. F., & Kashdan, T. B. (2009). Depression and every-
day social activity, intimacy, and well-being. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 56, 289–300.
Steger, M. F., Kashdan, T. B., & Oishi, S. (2008). Being good
by doing good: Eudaimonic activity and daily well-being
correlates, mediators, and temporal relations. Journal of
Research in Personality, 42,22–42.
Steger, M. F., Kashdan, T. B., Sullivan, B. A., & Lorentz, D.
(2008). Understanding the search for meaning in life: Person-
ality, cognitive style, and the dynamic between seeking and
experiencing meaning. Journal of Personality, 76, 199–228.
Steger, M. F., Kawabata, Y., Shimai, S., & Otake, K. (2008c).
The meaningful life in Japan and the United States: Levels
and correlates of meaning in life. Journal of Research in
Personality, 42, 660–678.
Steger, M. F., Mann, J., Michels, P., & Cooper, T. (2009).
Meaning in life, anxiety, depression, and general health
among smoking cessation patients. Journal of Psychosomatic
Research, 67, 353–358.
Steger, M. F., Oishi, S., & Kesibir, S. (2011). Is a life without
meaning satisfying? The moderating role of the search for
meaning in satisfaction with life judgments. Journal of Posi-
tive Psychology, 6, 173–180.
Steger, M. F., & Park, C. L. (2012). The creation of meaning fol-
lowing trauma: Meaning making and trajectories of distress
and recovery. In T. Keane, E. Newman, & K. Fogler (Eds.),
Toward an integrated approach to trauma focused therapy:
Placing evidence-based interventions in an expanded psycho-
logical context (pp. 171–191). Washington, DC: APA.
Steger, M. F., & Shin, J. Y. (2010). The relevance of the Mean-
ing in Life Questionnaire to therapeutic practice: A look at
the initial evidence. International Forum on Logotherapy,
33,95–104.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development
and validation of brief measures of positive and negative
affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
The Journal of Positive Psychology 13
Downloaded by [Colorado State University], [Michael Steger] at 09:33 13 March 2013