Prioritizing Meaning as a Pathway to Meaning in Life and Well-Being

Abstract

Experiencing both positive emotions and meaning is fundamental to human flourishing. The present study aimed to build and expand upon recent attempts to assess prioritizing positivity, which involves habitual ways of incorporating positive emotions in daily life (Catalino, Algoe and Fredrickson 2014), by assessing the prioritization of meaning in daily life and its associations with well-being. Results from two studies, employing adult community samples (N=107 and N=251) demonstrated coherent, replicable factor structure and good internal reliability for the 12-item scale of prioritizing meaning. Prioritizing meaning was positively associated with life satisfaction, happiness, positive emotions, sense of coherence, gratitude and presence of meaning, beyond the effect of prioritizing positivity, thus demonstrating the possibility that prioritizing meaning makes a distinctive contribution to well-being.
Process mediation models showed that prioritizing meaning is associated with the experience of meaning which in turn mediates the beneficial effects of prioritizing meaning on a variety of well-being indicators. Prioritizing meaning was also directly associated with well-being indicators underscoring its potential role in affecting well-being. Furthermore, prioritizing meaning was found to significantly mediate the effect of search for meaning on all indicators of well-being other than sense of coherence. The findings suggest the importance of prioritizing meaning and hold significant conceptual and practical implications for understanding processes of meaning making and their potential effects on individuals’ well-being.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
Journal of Happiness Studies
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-0031-y
1 3
RESEARCH PAPER
Prioritizing Meaning asaPathway toMeaning inLife
andWell‑Being
PninitRusso‑Netzer1
© Springer Nature B.V. 2018
Abstract
Experiencing both positive emotions and meaning is fundamental to human flourishing.
The present study aimed to build and expand upon recent attempts to assess prioritiz-
ing positivity, which involves habitual ways of incorporating positive emotions in daily
life (Catalino etal. in Emotion 14(6): 1155–1161, 2014), by assessing the prioritization
of meaning in daily life and its associations with well-being. Results from two studies,
employing adult community samples (N = 107 and N = 251) demonstrated coherent, rep-
licable factor structure and good internal reliability for the 12-item scale of prioritizing
meaning. Prioritizing meaning was positively associated with life satisfaction, happiness,
positive emotions, sense of coherence, gratitude and presence of meaning, beyond the
effect of prioritizing positivity, thus demonstrating the possibility that prioritizing meaning
makes a distinctive contribution to well-being. Process mediation models showed that pri-
oritizing meaning is associated with the experience of meaning which in turn mediates the
beneficial effects of prioritizing meaning on a variety of well-being indicators. Prioritizing
meaning was also directly associated with well-being indicators underscoring its potential
role in affecting well-being. Furthermore, prioritizing meaning was found to significantly
mediate the effect of search for meaning on all indicators of well-being other than sense of
coherence. The findings suggest the importance of prioritizing meaning and hold signifi-
cant conceptual and practical implications for understanding processes of meaning making
and their potential effects on individuals’ well-being.
Keywords Meaning in life· Well-being· Prioritizing meaning· Hedonia· Eudaimonia
1 Introduction
The need to experience life as meaningful is fundamental to human nature (e.g. Baumeister
1991; Frankl 1963). Experiencing meaning is strongly and repeatedly associated with well-
being and thriving (e.g. Ryff and Singer 1998; Scollon and King 2004). The present study
explored a potentially significant way in which individuals incorporate meaning in their
daily life by introducing the construct of prioritizing meaning. This built on and expanded
* Pninit Russo-Netzer
pninit.russonetzer@gmail.com
1 Department ofCounseling andHuman Development, University ofHaifa, 31905Haifa, Israel

P.Russo-Netzer
1 3
upon recent attempts to assess prioritizing positivity, which involves habitual ways of
incorporating positive emotions in daily life (Catalino, Algoe and Fredrickson 2014). This
study had three overarching objectives: (a) to develop and validate a new measure for pri-
oritizing meaning; (b) to explore its associations with well-being beyond the effects of
prioritizing positivity, reflecting the two pathways to well-being, eudaimonic and hedonic
respectively; and (c) to examine the relationship between prioritizing meaning and the
presence of, and search for, meaning in life.
2 Complementary Pathways toWell‑being: Prioritizing Happiness
andPrioritizing Meaning
Empirical and philosophical literature examining well-being mostly refers to two basic
forms (Friedman 2012; Ryan and Deci 2001; Ryff and Singer 1998; Ryff etal. 2004; Water-
man 1993), both of which are fundamental to human flourishing. Hedonia involves pursu-
ing happiness, positive affect, life satisfaction and reduced negative affect (Huta and Water-
man 2014; Ryan et al. 2008). Eudaimonia supports the idea that well-being is achieved
when individuals live in accordance with their “true selves,” which includes experiencing
self-actualization, meaning, virtuous purpose and growth at the individual level (Ryan and
Deci 2001; Ryff etal. 2004; Waterman 1993) as well as commitment to shared goals and
values at the social level (Massimini and Delle Fave 2000).
These two types of well-being, hedonic and eudaimonic, convey two rather different or
independent life-pursuits or goals, yet they are not mutually exclusive and each is essential
in its own particular manner (Huta 2016). Overall, hedonia addresses more fundamental
and immediate needs, while eudaimonia is considered a sort of “higher pleasure” (Selig-
man 2002) as it enables individuals to develop their potential and address values, virtue
and vision (Huta 2016; Steger etal. 2011). Pursuing hedonia is generally related to per-
sonal well-being, whereas the pursuit of eudaimonia is associated with both personal well-
being and caring that goes beyond self-interest (e.g., Huta and Ryan 2010; Peterson etal.
2005). For example, eudaimonia was found to be linked with generative behavior (see de
St. Aubin 2013), which refers to a concern for fostering the development of society and
future generations instead of being focused purely on one’s own personal welfare (Erikson
1950; McAdams and de St. Aubin 1992). Although distinct, both theoretically and empiri-
cally (e.g., Huta and Ryan 2010), they are considered to have complementary functions
(Huta 2016). It was found that a combination of both eudaimonic and hedonic pursuits is
linked to optimal functioning, as reflected in more complete and comprehensive well-being
than results from either pursuit on its own (e.g., Huta and Ryan 2010; Peterson etal. 2005),
as well as higher degrees of mental health (Keyes 2002).
Each of these complementary concepts includes individuals’ orientations or motives for
actions, experiences, functioning, and behaviors or activities (Huta and Waterman 2014).
Hedonic activities aim to produce positive affect and happiness for the individual in the
present moment (Huta and Ryan 2010). However, research has shown that the understand-
ing of the effects of the active pursuit of positive emotions, and therefore the hedonic life,
is not as clear as expected (Ford and Mauss 2014). Various studies have suggested the par-
adoxical effect that the more individuals value happiness, the less likely they will be able
to actually attain it (Mauss, Tamir, Anderson and Savino 2011; Schooler etal. 2003). This
may be due to placing excessive value on happiness and setting unrealistically high stand-
ards for happiness that may cause fear of not measuring up to all these expectations (Ford

Prioritizing Meaning asaPathway toMeaning inLife and…
1 3
and Mauss 2014). Such an evaluative rather than engaged mindset involves constant per-
sonal monitoring that appears to impede enjoyment (see Vittersø etal. 2009).
Catalino et al. (2014) propose an alternative in their research. They suggest that pri-
oritizing positivity is a more effective way to enhance well-being than over-emphasizing
the pursuit of happiness. They explain that prioritizing positivity reflects, “the extent to
which individuals seek out positivity by virtue of how they make decisions about how to
organize their day-to-day lives” (Catalino etal. 2014; p. 1159). By making better choices
regarding activities involving positive emotions, individuals maximize the likelihood of
spontaneously experiencing positive emotions in day-to-day life. This approach builds on
an emotional regulation strategy of situation selection in which individuals actively seek
situations that will cause or prevent certain emotions (Gross and Thompson 2007). The
research supports this, finding that prioritizing positivity has a positive correlation with
positive emotions and life satisfaction as well as a negative correlation with negative emo-
tions and depression (Catalino etal. 2014).
The present study applied the same rationale with regard to eudaimonia, which is largely
guided by activities that are intrinsically meaningful (Ryan and Deci 2001) and in line with
the individual’s personal values (Waterman 1993). Specifically, a measure to assess pri-
oritizing meaning in daily life was constructed. It assesses the extent to which individuals
intentionally seek out activities and contexts and make choices that are conducive to expe-
riencing meaning. Research on prioritizing positivity (Catalino et al. 2014), a construct
linked to hedonic well-being, has demonstrated that individuals who regularly prioritize
positive emotions and experiences in their day-to-day lives may in fact be happier than
those who do not. In light of the centrality of meaning to eudaimonia (e.g., McGregor and
Little 1998; Ryan and Deci 2001; Ryff and Singer 1998; Seligman 2002), it was expected
that prioritizing meaning in one’s choices and activities would make a unique contribution
to well-being. The current research complements previous efforts by Catalino etal. (2014)
and provides an initial examination of the association of prioritizing meaning with sev-
eral aspects of well-being, while simultaneously proposing a measure to assess it. In keep-
ing with the view that hedonia and eudaimonia are two complementary pathways to well-
being, it was hypothesized that both prioritizing positivity and prioritizing meaning would
be positively associated with well-being in a distinct yet complementary manner. In terms
of the well-being outcomes explored, this study adopted an extended view beyond the com-
monly used indicators (positive affect, negative affect and life satisfaction [cf. Huta and
Ryan 2010]) and included additional variables (e.g., happiness) as well as some outcomes
which are more directly related to eudaimonia such as sense of coherence, generativity and
gratitude.
3 The Association Between Prioritizing Meaning andMeaning inLife
(Presence andSearch)
The abstract and multifaceted nature of the construct of meaning in life (MIL) poses a
conceptual and empirical challenge (e.g., George and Park 2016; Martela and Steger 2016).
Recent integrative conceptualization offers a conception of meaning in life that includes
three central dimensions: comprehension, purpose, and mattering (George and Park 2016;
Martela and Steger 2016; Steger 2012). Specifically meaning in life “may be defined as
the extent to which one’s life is experienced as making sense, as being directed and moti-
vated by valued goals, and as mattering in the world” referring to these three dimensions

P.Russo-Netzer
1 3
respectively (George and Park 2016; p. 2). Although these sub-constructs do facilitate a
more nuanced conceptual understanding of the construct of meaning, little is known
about the extent to which individuals actually incorporate meaning into their daily lives.
Research exploring the specific sources or contents of individuals’ meaning in life (e.g.,
Schnell 2009; Wong 1998) and the dynamics of day-to-day behaviors (e.g., Steger etal.
2008) reveal the need for better understanding individuals’ engagement with the question
of meaning in their lives.
For example, the most widely used measure for meaning in life, the Meaning in Life
Questionnaire (MLQ; Steger etal. 2006), is made up of two subscales: presence of mean-
ing (MLQ-P) and search for meaning (MLQ-S). The former refers to the subjective sense
of one’s life as being meaningful and comprehensible and the latter reflects “the strength,
intensity, and activity of people’s desire and efforts to establish and/or augment their under-
standing of the meaning, significance and purpose of their lives” (Steger etal. 2008a; p.
200). In line with the purported centrality of eudaimonia to well-being, extensive research
has provided evidence that the presence of meaning is beneficial to various aspects of well-
being, including positive affect, life satisfaction and happiness (e.g., King etal. 2006; Park
etal. 2010; Ryff 1989; Steger 2012; Steger etal. 2008).
In contrast, the construct of the search for meaning presents a more complex picture,
conceptually and empirically (Steger etal. 2011). Some researchers believe that searching
for meaning is fundamental to human life and hence there is natural motivation (will to
meaning) to pursue this important and central human endeavor (e.g. Frankl 1963). Others,
however, discuss it as a warning sign that meaning has been lost (e.g. Baumeister 1991).
Empirical research has found that searching for meaning as assessed using the MLQ is
associated with less life satisfaction (e.g., Park etal. 2010) and greater anxiety, depression
and rumination (e.g., Steger etal. 2008b). Yet studies have also shown that searching for
meaning is associated with positive outcomes such as open mindedness, drive and absorp-
tion (Steger etal. 2006; Steger etal. 2008b). Thus, search for meaning may have multifac-
eted associations with well-being. Reflecting this view, some research also indicates that
the association between searching for meaning and decreased well-being may differ across
cultures, as searching for meaning was found to be positively related to mental health in
collectivist cultures (e.g., Datu 2015). Along the same lines, another study showed that
while the search for meaning was negatively related to the presence of meaning among
U.S. participants, it was positively related to the presence of meaning among Japanese indi-
viduals. This suggests that the search for meaning, as assessed by the MLQ, may evoke dif-
ferent understandings in different cultures and may moderate cultural effects on presence of
meaning (Steger etal. 2008c). This is consistent with the concerns that lack of context and
content regarding what presence and search constitute means these concepts remain rather
abstract (Wong 2014) and are subject to intuitive judgments regarding what they mean on a
personal level and how they align with individuals’ lives (George and Park 2016).
Taken together, these results indicate that the interplay between the search for mean-
ing and well-being may require further unpacking. Recently, it has been suggested that the
search for meaning may operate as a schema, helping the individual to identify and arrange
information relevant to making accurate meaning-in-life judgments (Steger etal. 2011).
For example, the relation between the presence of meaning and life satisfaction was found
to be stronger among individuals searching for meaning (Steger etal. 2008c).
This finding may be interpreted as suggesting that one aspect of the general search for
meaning is the active prioritization of meaning in daily life (Steger etal. 2011). It thus can
be suggested that when the search for meaning is expressed by actively prioritizing mean-
ing in daily life, the search for meaning may be expected to be associated with benevolent

Prioritizing Meaning asaPathway toMeaning inLife and…
1 3
outcomes. In this sense, prioritizing meaning, as defined and characterized here, reflects
individual differences in the extent to which meaning is implemented via the decisions
individuals make about where to invest effort in the context of everyday life. Existential
scholars such as May (1967) and Maddi (1970) have already demonstrated that experienc-
ing meaning requires action and praxis. More specifically, Frankl (e.g. 1963) emphasized
concrete action that is congruent with one’s logos or will to meaning as a route to experi-
encing meaningfulness. Similarly, Wong (2010) indicated, in his PURE model, the impor-
tance of taking action, finding it fundamental to experiencing meaning, alongside other
components of purpose, understanding and evaluation. According to the model, action
refers to value-driven responsible actions, choices and reactions (Wong 2014).
4 Overview ofthePresent Research
The present study sought to explore the differences reflected in the extent to which indi-
viduals intentionally act and organize, as well as make decisions, in their day-to-day life
to experience more meaning. Such individual differences may play two complementary
functions. First, given that prioritizing meaning refers to the differences in the way people
approach meaning through the concrete actions they choose to be involved with in their
daily lives, prioritizing meaning was expected to be positively associated with the presence
of meaning where such presence would mediate to some extent the benevolent associa-
tions of prioritizing meaning with other indicators of well-being (see Fig. 1). Second, it
was suggested that in addition to this association, prioritizing meaning would also provide
one of the missing links in the interplay between the search for meaning and well-being.
Search for meaning mostly reflects a general state of mind or attitude towards life. The
general rather than concrete nature of such an intention creates the possibility that it may
or may not lead to well-being. In contrast, prioritizing meaning reflects a more specific,
concrete and operationalized stance. Hence, prioritizing meaning might be conceived as
the concrete vehicle through which search may culminate in well-being including pres-
ence of meaning. Specifically, it was hypothesized that prioritizing meaning also would be
positively associated with the search for meaning and that it would mediate the association
between the search for meaning and well-being (see Fig.2).
Two studies were conducted to explore the validity of prioritizing meaning and its
association with the search for and presence of meaning and various aspects of well-
being. In these studies, well-being was assessed using a variety of indicators: positive
emotions, happiness, generativity, sense of coherence, gratitude and satisfaction with
life, as well as negative emotions and depression. More specifically, the positive and
negative affect scale (PANAS) is considered a commonly used measure of hedonic
Priorizing
meaning
Other well-
being indicators
Presence of meaning
Fig. 1 Theoretical model: the mediational role of the presence of meaning between prioritizing meaning
and well-being indicators

P.Russo-Netzer
1 3
well-being (Deci and Ryan 2008; Huta and Ryan 2010). The measure for the prevalence
of depressive mood and symptoms (CES-D scale; Radloff 1977) is often the indica-
tor for the most pertinent negative affective state in connection to hedonic well-being
(Vanhoutte 2014). Happiness is another widely used measure for hedonic well-being
(e.g., Nave etal. 2008). Generativity (e.g., de St. Aubin 2013), sense of coherence (e.g.,
Temane and Wissing 2006), and gratitude (e.g., Wood et al. 2008) generally reflect
measures for eudaimonic well-being. Satisfaction with life is considered a common
indicator of hedonic well-being (e.g., Deci and Ryan 2008; Kahneman etal. 1999), yet
some studies have found that both eudaimonia and hedonia are related to life satisfac-
tion (Huta and Ryan 2010; Peterson etal. 2005).
5 Study 1
The purpose of Study 1 was to develop and test a measure for prioritizing meaning.
Its factor structure and internal consistency were examined. It was hypothesized that
prioritizing meaning would be positively associated with the presence of and search for
meaning (two scales of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire; MLQ; Steger etal. 2006)
since the two measures assess conceptually similar constructs, but the association would
not be too high, indicating that they are interrelated but represent different constructs.
Furthermore, it was hypothesized that prioritizing meaning would be positively associ-
ated with the various well-being indicators, both hedonic and eudaimonic.
6 Method
6.1 Participants
The sample consisted of 107 Israeli adults with a mean age of 34.9years (SD = 14.47).
Approximately 87 percent of the sample (n = 93) were women. The majority of the par-
ticipants were Jewish (72%), with the remainder of the sample identifying as Muslim
(12%), Christian (10%) and Druze (5.6%). That said, 56.5% of the participants defined
themselves as secular. As for education, 17% were high-school graduates, 46% had a
bachelor degree (BA), and the rest had higher degrees. As for marital status, 52% were
married and 44.4% single.
Priorizing
meaning
Search for
meaning Well-being
indicators
Fig. 2 Theoretical model: the mediational role of the prioritizing of meaning between search for meaning
and well-being indicators

Prioritizing Meaning asaPathway toMeaning inLife and…
1 3
6.2 Procedure
Participants were recruited via an e-mail request that was widely distributed through vari-
ous mailing lists and websites targeting the general public as well as university students.
Participants completed a series of on-line questionnaires. They received no compensa-
tionforparticipatingin thestudy.
6.3 Measures
Prioritizing Meaning: This measure was developed specifically for the present study in
order to examine the extent to which individuals intentionally act and organize, as well as
make decisions, in their day-to-day life so that they can experience more meaning. Twelve
items referring to prioritizing meaning in everyday life were formulated based on a review
of existing measures of meaning in life, as well as by consulting items from a recent scale
related to prioritizing positivity in everyday life (Catalino etal. 2014). These items were
tested on a sample of 85 undergraduate students to evaluate their clarity and wording.
Respondents were asked to use a 9-point scale (1 = disagree strongly, 9 = agree strongly;
see results section). The measure was translated into English using back-translation by both
the author and a native English speaker who is bilingual in Hebrew, independently (see
Table1 for items and psychometric information).
Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener etal. 1985): This scale measures the extent
to which individuals judge their lives to be satisfactory. Using a 7-point scale (1 = strongly
disagree, 7 = strongly agree), participants indicated the extent they agree or disagree with
five items, including, “the conditions of my life are excellent” and “I am satisfied with my
life.” The scale was translated into Hebrew and validated by Anaby etal. (2010). In the
present study, Cronbach’s α coefficient was .87.
Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS; Watson etal. 1988): This was used to meas-
ure how frequently individuals experienced positive and negative emotions during the past
week. The measure includes two 10-item mood scales and was developed to provide brief
measures of positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA). Participants were asked to rate
the extent to which they had experienced each particular emotion within a specified time
period on a 5-point scale (1 = very slightly or not at all to 5 = very much). Anaby et al.
(2010) developed and validated the Hebrew version of the PANAS and several studies have
demonstrated the validity and reliability of the PANAS as a measure (Watson etal. 1988).
In the present study, Cronbach’s α coefficients for PA was .87 and for NA was .86.
Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ; Steger etal. 2006): This was used to assess the
search for and presence of meaning in the individual’s life, with “search for” and “presence
of” representing two subscales of the overall measure. The present study used the Hebrew
version of this questionnaire (Littman-Ovadia and Steger 2010). The search subscale is
comprised of five items (MLQ-S; e.g., “I am looking for something that makes my life feel
meaningful” and “I am seeking a purpose or mission for my life”) and Cronbach’s α coef-
ficient = .87. The presence of meaning subscale is comprised of the remaining five items of
the measure (MLQ-P; e.g., “I understand my life’s meaning” and “My life has no clear pur-
pose”) and Cronbach’s α coefficient = .91. Both subscales were rated using a 1 (absolutely
untrue) to 7 (absolutely true) Likert scale.
Loyola Generativity Scale (LGS; McAdams and de St. Aubin 1992): The measure
includes 20 items (e.g., “I feel as though I have made a difference to many people” and

P.Russo-Netzer
1 3
Table 1 Prioritizing meaning item means, standard deviations and factor loadings (PCA)
Participants were provided with the following instructions: Using the scale below, please select a response from 1 to 9. The response scale was 1 = disagree strongly, 2 = disa-
gree mostly, 3 = disagree somewhat, 4 = disagree slightly, 5 = neither disagree or agree, 6 = agree slightly, 7 = agree somewhat, 8 = agree mostly, and 9 = agree strongly
Prioritizing meaning item Study 1 (N = 107) Study 2 (N = 251)
Mean SD Factor load-
ing (PCA)
Mean SD Factor
loading
(PCA)
I prefer to engage in activities which are related to the sense of meaning in my life 7.59 1.45 .68 6.22 2.31 .79
I devote as much time as I can to activities that have great meaning for me 7.32 1.50 .67 5.98 2.19 .84
The manner in which I organize my day reflects values that are meaningful to me 6.87 1.84 .75 5.94 2.23 .84
My major decisions in life (e.g., the job I choose, where I choose to live) are influenced by how much I
might experience meaning as a result
7.63 1.27 .64 6.14 2.24 .77
I admire people who make their decisions based on the meaning they will gain 8.06 .99 .61 6.91 1.99 .67
One of the main considerations in my choice whether to do something is the sense of meaning it will bring
me
7.46 1.27 .78 6.41 2.08 .86
In my day-to-day life, I choose to do things in accordance with my life’s purpose 6.90 1.52 .83 5.90 2.20 .87
I choose and prefer activities which stimulate a sense of value and meaning 7.38 1.52 .83 6.54 2.09 .86
The consideration which guides the priority I give to activities is the extent to which I will be able to be
involved in things that are meaningful and make a difference in the world
6.78 1.85 .70 5.77 2.18 .80
I structure my day to be involved in things that are meaningful and valuable to me 6.68 1.83 .81 5.92 2.13 .87
The activities I choose to be involved with reflect who I really am 7.05 1.63 .74 6.32 2.03 .81
I choose to include in my life activities that are meaningful to me, even if they often require effort 7.43 1.28 .75 6.55 2.04 .84

Prioritizing Meaning asaPathway toMeaning inLife and…
1 3
“I feel as though my contributions will exist after I die”) rated on a 4-point scale, ranging
from 0 (never) to 3 (almost always) and Cronbach’s α coefficient = .85.
7 Results andBrief Discussion
7.1 Factor Analysis andDescriptive Information
Results of the exploratory factor analysis using principal components (KMO = .9) indi-
cate one dominant factor for all 12 items. Eigen values suggest one dominant factor (6.47),
which explains 53.90% of the variance in all 12 items. Results may possibly indicate two
additional factors (eigenvalues 1.07 and 1.01), but these values are very weak and explain
very little variance (8.90% and 8.45% respectively). The fourth eigenvalue equals .73.
Reviewing the item-loading indicates all items load onto the first factor (minimum loading
.61, maximum loading = .83). The full loadings are detailed in Table1. Two items may also
load onto a second factor, but these loadings are weak compared to their loading on the
first factor (.68 and .46, .67 and .57 respectively). Finally, two additional items may also
load onto a third factor but these too are weak in comparison to the first factor (.64 and .53,
.61 and .58), further strengthening the dominance of only one factor. The factor structure
was further examined in study 2.
Another sample (a third one) that included emerging adults from the general population
(mean age in years = 25.55; SD = 2.66) was used to examine factor loadings and distinctive-
ness between prioritizing meaning and prioritizing positivity (N = 285; 142 males). Items
from the prioritizing meaning and prioritizing positivity scales together were subjected to
a principal component factor analysis with ObliminwithKaiserrotation yielding two fac-
tors, one with all 12 prioritizing meaning items (Eigen value = 8.15, 45.30% explained var-
iance) and the other with all six prioritizing positivity items (Eigen value = 2.30, 12.77%
explained variance). Factor loadings on the pattern matrix of the 12 items that load on the
first factor ranged from .54 to .85 with the six other items of prioritizing positivity having
low loadings ranging from − 0.07 to 0.14. Factor loadings of the six items of prioritizing
positivity that load on the second factor ranged from .64 to .86 with 12 other items having
low loadings ranging from − 0.08 to 0.16. Factors were correlated r = .43. These results
substantiate the factor structure of prioritizing meaning and its distinctiveness from prior-
itizing positivity despite their association.
As Table2 shows, prioritizing meaning was evaluated relatively highly by the partici-
pants (M = 7.24, SD = 1.10, range 1–9, skewness = − 0.652, SE = .235) and was positively
associated with other constructs of meaning in life—presence and search—yet not too high
(r = .54 and .34 respectively), which supports the contention that they reflect related yet
unique constructs. In addition, and as expected, prioritizing meaning was found to be sig-
nificantly and positively correlated with life satisfaction, positive affect and generatively. It
did not significantly correlate with negative affect (NA).
In sum, Study 1 aimed to test the factor structure and internal consistency of the prior-
itizing meaning scale. Results indicated one dominant factor for all 12 items. As hypoth-
esized, prioritizing meaning was positively associated with the presence of and search
for meaning (two scales of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire; MLQ; Steger etal. 2006),
indicating that they are interrelated but represent different constructs. Furthermore, pri-
oritizing meaning was positively associated with the various well-being indicators, both
hedonic and eudaimonic. To further assess the robustness of the factor structure, Study 2

P.Russo-Netzer
1 3
Table 2 Means, standard deviations and correlations among the study variables, Study 1 (N = 107)
*p < 0.05 , **p < .01 , ***p < .001
M (SD) Life satisfaction Positive affect Negative affect Presence of meaning Search for meaning Generativity
Prioritizing meaning 7.24 (1.10) .57*** .56*** − .11 .54*** .34*** .39***
Life satisfaction 4.95 (1.27) .39*** − .25* .52*** .06 .35***
Positive affect 3.69 (0.63) − .12 .47*** .36*** .51***
Negative affect 2.37 (0.68) − .32*** .03 − .04
Presence of meaning 5.29 (1.25) .29** .52***
Search for meaning 4.97 (1.38) .28**
Generativity 2.81 (0.33)

Prioritizing Meaning asaPathway toMeaning inLife and…
1 3
sought replication in an independent sample, as well as to examine the effects of prioritiz-
ing meaning on well-being beyond the effects of prioritizing positivity, and the relationship
between prioritizing meaning and the presence of and search for meaning in life.
8 Study 2
Study 2 sought to expand the exploration of Study 1 by: (1) replicating its results in an
independent and larger sample; (2) examining whether prioritizing meaning is associ-
ated with a variety of measures of well-being beyond the effects of prioritizing positivity,
reflecting the distinctiveness of the two pathways to well-being, hedonic and eudaimonic;
and (3) exploring the relationship between prioritizing meaning and the presence of, and
search for, meaning in life. Specifically, (1) it was hypothesized that prioritizing meaning
would be positively correlated with life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, presence of
meaning, sense of coherence and gratitude, and negatively correlated with negative affect
and depression. It was also hypothesized (2) that prioritizing meaning would be positively
associated with hedonic and eudaimonic well-being beyond the effects of prioritizing pos-
itivity. Furthermore, it was hypothesized (3) that presence of meaning would somewhat
mediate the benevolent effects of prioritizing meaning on well-being (Fig.1). Finally, it
was expected that (4) prioritizing meaning would mediate the link between the search for
meaning and various well-being indicators (Fig.2).
9 Method
9.1 Participants
A heterogeneous community sample consisting of 251 Israeli adults, 108 males (43%) and
143 females (57%) participated. Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 70 (M = 40 years,
SD = 14.36). Most of the participants were Jewish (80.5%) and 56.2% of the sample identi-
fied themselves as secular. Education levels ranged from high school (25.6%) and training/
professional diploma (20%) to higher academic education (54.4%). Participants who were
married made up 60.6% of the sample; 31.9% were single. This distribution resembles the
general Israeli population (Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics 2015) with 75% Jewish and
56% married. However, it departs from the general Israeli population in terms of gender,
having more women compared to the gender distribution in the general public (with 50%
males), secularism (with 43% secular in the general public), and education (with 32% with
an academic degree in the general public).
9.2 Procedure
Participants were recruited via a nationwide survey aimed at creating a broad community
sample representative of the general population in Israel through the use of iPanel, a survey
company specializing in Internet-based research. This method made it possible to obtain a
heterogeneous sample representing a wide range of occupations, ages, education levels and
marital statuses. Participants completed a series of on-line questionnaires.

P.Russo-Netzer
1 3
9.3 Measures
Prioritizing Meaning: Participants completed the same prioritizing meaning scale as in
Study 1.
Results of the exploratory factor analysis using principal components (KMO = .94) indi-
cate all 12 items load onto one single factor (eigenvalue 8.06), which explains 67.15% of
the variance in all 12 items (minimum loading .67, maximum loading = .87). The second
eigenvalue equals .82. The full loadings are also detailed in Table1, together with the load-
ings from Study 1. I also repeated this model using CFA with one factor for all 12 items.
All 12 items load onto one single factor and all measures of the model fit, but RMSEA
indicate a good fit: χ2(52) = 237.37, p < .001; NFI = .91, TLI = .91, CFI = .93, SRMR = .04,
RMSEA = .12. All items indicate significant and positive estimates for the single factor.
See Table3.
Overall, for sample 1, Eigen values suggest one dominant factor (3.419), which explains
56.97% of the variance in all six items. Reviewing the item-loading indicates all items
load onto the first factor (minimum loading .686, maximum loading = .835). For sample
2, Eigen values suggest one dominant factor (4.23), which explains 70.5% of the variance
in all six items. Reviewing the item-loading indicates all items load onto the first factor
(minimum loading .785, maximum loading = .887). For sample 3 (collected for validation
purposes, as mentioned below), Eigen values suggest one dominant factor (3.409), which
explains 56.81% of the variance in all six items. Reviewing the item-loading indicates all
items load onto the first factor (minimum loading .701, maximum loading = .801).
Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener etal. 1985): The same measure was used as
in Study 1 and α = .90.
Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS; Watson etal. 1988): In the present study,
Cronbach’s α for PA was .88 and for NA was .91.
Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ; Steger etal. 2006): In the present study, Cron-
bach’s α coefficient was .88 for both the search subscale and for the presence subscale.
Prioritizing Positivity (Catalino etal. 2014): Participants indicated the extent of their
agreement or disagreement with six items using a 9-point scale (1 = disagree strongly,
9 = agree strongly), including “A priority for me is experiencing happiness in everyday
life,” “I look for and nurture my positive emotions,” “What I decide to do with my time
outside of work is influenced by how much I might experience positive emotions,” “I struc-
ture my day to maximize my happiness,” “My major decisions in life (e.g., the job I choose,
the house I buy) are influenced by how much I might experience positive emotions,” and “I
admire people who make their decisions based on the happiness they will gain.” The scale
was translated into Hebrew by the author, who is fluent in English and Hebrew. A native
English speaker who is bilingual in Hebrew verified correspondence with the original ver-
sion of the questionnaire using the back-translation method. Cronbach’s α coefficient was
.91.
Valuing Happiness Scale (Mauss etal. 2011): This consists of seven items measuring
to what extent participants value happiness to an extreme degree (e.g., “How happy I am
at any given moment says a lot about how worthwhile my life is,” “If I don’t feel happy,
maybe there is something wrong with me,” and “Feeling happy is extremely important to
me”) rated on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The original English
version was translated into Hebrew by the author and back-translated independently by a
native English speaker who is bilingual in Hebrew. Cronbach’s α coefficient was .78. This
measure was included in the study as a covariate in order to control for its effect and to gain

Prioritizing Meaning asaPathway toMeaning inLife and…
1 3
Table 3 Prioritizing meaning item means, standard deviations and factor loadings (CFA)
Model fit: χ2(52) = 237.37, p < .001; NFI = .91, TLI = .91, CFI = .93, SRMR = .04, RMSEA = .12
Participants were provided with the following instructions: Using the scale below, please select a response from 1 to 9. The response scale was 1 = disagree strongly, 2 = disa-
gree mostly, 3 = disagree somewhat, 4 = disagree slightly, 5 = neither disagree or agree, 6 = agree slightly, 7 = agree somewhat, 8 = agree mostly, and 9 = agree strongly
***p < .001
Prioritizing meaning item Study 2 (N = 251)
Estimate SE Standardized
estimate
Explained
variance (%)
I prefer to engage in activities which are related to the sense of meaning in my life 1.00 .75*** 57
I devote as much time as I can to activities that have great meaning for me 1.01 .06 .80*** 65
The manner in which I organize my day reflects values that are meaningful to me 1.04 .08 .81*** 66
My major decisions in life (e.g., the job I choose, where I choose to live) are influenced by how much I might
experience meaning as a result
.96 .08 .75*** 56
I admire people who make their decisions based on the meaning they will gain .72 .07 .62*** 39
One of the main considerations in my choice whether to do something is the sense of meaning it will bring me 1.00 .07 .84*** 70
In my day-to-day life, I choose to do things in accordance with my life’s purpose 1.10 .07 .87*** 76
I choose and prefer activities which stimulate a sense of value and meaning 1.02 .07 .84*** 71
The consideration which guides the priority I give to activities is the extent to which I will be able to be
involved in things that are meaningful and make a difference in the world
.99 .07 .79*** 62
I structure my day to be involved in things that are meaningful and valuable to me 1.05 .07 .86*** 74
The activities I choose to be involved with reflect who I really am .92 .07 .79*** 62
I choose to include in my life activities that are meaningful to me, even if they often require effort .97 .07 .83*** 68

P.Russo-Netzer
1 3
a more “pure” measure of prioritizing positivity. This was done in accordance with the
indication by Catalino etal. (2014) that “prioritizing positivity, although chiefly a positive
trait, may have a bit of a ‘dark side’ that is captured by its shared variance with the valuing
happiness measure. When this dark side is partialed out, our scale even strongly reveals the
potential benefit of making positivity a priority” (p. 1159).
Center for Epidemiological Studies–Depression (CES-D; Radloff 1977): This was used
to assess negative aspects of well-being and to measure participants’ reported depressive
symptoms experienced during the past week with 20 items (e.g., “I couldn’t get going” and
“I felt depressed”) measured on a 4-point scale (0 = rarely or none of the time—less than
1day; 3 = all of the time—5–7days). Cronbach’s α coefficient was .90.
The Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS; Lyubomirsky and Lepper 1999): The scale con-
sists of four items on a 7-point Likert scale and was used to measure how happy people rate
themselves in general (1 = not a very happy person, 7 = a very happy person) and relative
to their peers (1 = less happy, 7 = more happy). The participants also indicated the extent to
which a description of a “very happy” person characterizes them (1 = not at all, 7 = a great
deal) and α = .82.
Sense of Coherence (SOC; Antonovsky 1987): This was measured by items rated on a
7-point semantic differential with an anchoring phrase on each end, whereby higher scores
reflect a stronger sense of coherence. The SOC is considered a reliable, valid and cross-
culturally applicable instrument for measuring the manner in which individuals manage
stressful situations and stay well (see Eriksson and Lindstrom 2005). The current research
used the short Hebrew version of the scale, including just 13 items, which addresses the
three components of SOC, namely participants’ comprehensibility (feeling that they under-
stood their environment), manageability (experiencing feelings of control) and meaningful-
ness (experiencing feelings of being involved in their environment), as an overall score.
Items included: “Do you have the feeling that you don’t really care about what goes on
around you?” (reverse scored); “Has it happened that people whom you counted on have
disappointed you?” (reverse scored); and “Are you surprised by the behaviour of people
whom you thought you knew well?” (reverse scored) and revealed Cronbach’s α = .74.
Gratitude Questionnaire (GQ-6; McCullough etal. 2002): This is designed to measure
four dimensions of a grateful disposition: intensity (e.g., “I feel thankful for what I have
received in life”); frequency (e.g., “Long amounts of time can go by before I feel grateful
to something or someone” – reverse scored); span (e.g., “I sometimes feel grateful for the
smallest things”); and density (e.g., “I am grateful to a wide variety of people”). All six
items were measured on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) with higher
scores denoting greater gratitude. Cronbach’s α coefficient was .83 (seeTable4).
10 Results
10.1 Prioritizing Meaning asaPredictor
In order to explore whether prioritizing meaning and prioritizing positivity contribute to
well-being in an independent yet complementary manner, a series of hierarchical regres-
sion models were conducted. In line with Catalino etal. (2014), prioritizing positivity was
controlled for valuing happiness as follows: As prioritizing positivity and valuing happi-
ness had different scales, they were both standardized. The adjusted residual gain of pri-
oritizing positivity was defined, controlling for valuing happiness. This controlled variable

Prioritizing Meaning asaPathway toMeaning inLife and…
1 3
Table 4 Means, standard deviations and correlations among the study variables, Study 2 (N = 251)
*p < 0.05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
M (SD) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 Prioritizing meaning 6.22 (1.75) .69*** .33*** .45*** .37*** .29*** − .36*** − .19** .57*** .26*** .34*** .39***
2 Prioritizing positivity 6.34 (1.69) .47*** .46*** .40*** .27*** − .33*** − .16* .39*** .23*** .28*** .31***
3 Valuing positivity 4.47 (1.06) .27*** .04 .03 − .01 .12 .14* .37*** − .05 .07
4 Life satisfaction 4.66 (1.37) .56*** .44*** − .39*** − .45*** .57*** .04 .47*** .47***
5 Happiness 4.88 (1.25) .45*** − .51*** − .45*** .54*** .10 .54*** .58***
6 Positive affect 3.59 (0.70) − .18** − .39*** .47*** .03 .45*** .32***
7 Negative affect 2.20 (0.81) .66*** − .47*** − .07 − .55*** − .40***
8 Depression 36.60 (10.67) − .45*** .05 − .61*** − .37***
9 Presence of meaning 4.98 (1.31) .19** .53*** .57***
10 Search for meaning 4.45 (1.38) .01 .21**
11 Coherence 4.61 (0.84) .41***
12 Gratitude 32.04 (7.05)

P.Russo-Netzer
1 3
was used in the following regression analyses. In each regression, age in years and gender
(dichotomized as 1-males, 0-females) were entered at step 1, whereas prioritizing mean-
ing and prioritizing positivity were used as the predictors, entered at step 2. Specifically,
as Table5 shows, results of step 1 indicate that for satisfaction with life, positive affect,
and search for meaning, age and gender were non-significant. For happiness and gratitude,
both age and gender were significant with females and older respondents showing higher
levels. For negative affect and depression, as well as for presence of meaning and coher-
ence, age was significant with older participants showing less negative affect and depres-
sion and higher levels of presence of meaning and coherence; gender was non-significant.
As for step 2, for satisfaction with life, both prioritizing positivity and prioritizing meaning
were significant, explaining 22% of the variance (final model: R2= .22, F(4243) = 18.44,
p < .001); for happiness, the two predictors were both significant and together explained
17% of the variance (final model: R2 = .24, F(4243) = 20.05, p < .001); for positive affect,
the two predictors were both significant and explained 8% of the variance (final model:
R2 = .09, F(4243) = 6.88, p < .001); for negative affect, the two predictors were significant
and explained 11% of the variance (final model: R2 = .20, F(4243) = 16.19, p < .001); for
depression only prioritizing positivity was significant and 3% of the variance was explained
(final model: R2 = .07, F(4243) = 5.77, p < .001); for presence of meaning only prioritiz-
ing meaning was significant and 28% of the variance was explained (final model: R2 = .35,
F(4243) = 33.24, p < .001); for sense of coherence the two predictors explained 8% of the
variance (final model: R2 = .21, F(4243) = 17.27, p < .001); and for gratitude only prioritiz-
ing meaning was significant and 15% of the variance was explained (final model: R2 = .24,
F(4243) = 20.29, p < .001).1 .
10.2 The Relationship Between Prioritizing, Search andPresence ofMeaning
(Figs.1 and2)
The goal of the models proposed in Figs. 1 and 2 was to examine the role of prioritiz-
ing meaning in relation to existing concepts of meaning, namely, presence of meaning and
search for meaning. The proposed mediation models were estimated using model 4 using
Process Macro for SPSS (Hayes 2013) with bootstrapping of 5000 samples.
10.3 Presence ofMeaning asaMediator Between Prioritizing Meaning
andWell‑Being (Fig.1)
Presence of meaning was hypothesized to somewhat mediate the positive associations of
prioritizing meaning with well-being. Seven mediation models (coefficients and standard
errors) were conducted—one for each measure of well-being, while presence of mean-
ing served as a mediator in the association between prioritizing meaning and well-being
(see Table6). Two control variables were included in all models: age and gender (a binary
indicator for female). Presence of meaning was found to mediate the effect of prioritizing
meaning on all seven indicators of well-being. Results indicated significant mediation in
1 Note: when valuing happiness is not controlled for, the results for prioritizing meaning are similar, but for
positive affect, negative affect, depression, search for meaning and coherence (β = .13, β = − .15, β = − .05,
β = .09, and β = .06 respectively), prioritizing positivity is not a significant predictor. For satisfaction with
life and happiness, prioritizing positivity is significant (β = .29 and β = .26 respectively).

Prioritizing Meaning asaPathway toMeaning inLife and…
1 3
Table 5 Regression models of dependent variables on prioritizing meaning and prioritizing positivity
(N = 251)
Model 1 Model 2
B SE β B SE β
Life satisfaction
Age 0.01 0.01 .08 − 0.01 0.01 − .05
Gender − 0.13 0.18 − .05 − 0.18 0.16 − .06
Prioritizing positivity 0.25 0.10 .18*
Prioritizing meaning 0.28 0.06 .36***
Change R2.001 .22
F for change in R21.06 35.53***
F final model R2 = .22, F(4243) = 18.44, p < .001
Happiness
Age 0.02 0.01 .21*** 0.01 0.01 .09
Gender − 0.53 0.16 − .21*** − 0.54 0.14 − .21***
Prioritizing positivity 0.36 0.09 .28***
Prioritizing meaning 0.14 0.05 .20**
Change R2.07 .17
F for change in R210.31*** 27.53***
F final model R2 = .24, F(4243) = 20.05, p < .001
Positive affect
Age 0.01 0.01 .12 0.01 0.01 .03
Gender 0.02 0.09 .01 0.01 0.09 .01
Prioritizing positivity 0.12 0.05 .17*
Prioritizing meaning 0.07 0.03 .17*
Change R2.01 .08
F for change in R21.84 11.74***
F final model R2 = .09, F(4243) = 6.88, p < .001.
Negative affect
Age − 0.02 0.01 − .30*** − 0.01 0.01 − .20***
Gender 0.17 0.10 .11 0.18 0.10 .11
Prioritizing positivity − 0.17 0.06 − .21**
Prioritizing meaning − 0.09 0.03 − .19**
Change R2.09 .11
F for change in R212.51*** 18.09***
F final model R2 = .20, F(4243) = 16.19, p < .001.
Depression
Age − 0.16 0.05 − .22*** − 0.11 0.05 − .15*
Gender 0.69 1.36 .03 0.60 1.34 .03
Prioritizing positivity − 2.02 0.84 − .19*
Prioritizing meaning − 0.21 0.47 − .04
Change R2.04 .03
F for change in R25.82** 5.51**
F final model R2 = .07, F(4243) = 5.77, p < .001.
Presence of meaning
Age 0.02 0.01 .27*** 0.01 0.01 .13

P.Russo-Netzer
1 3
five models with the following well-being indicators: happiness, positive affect, negative
affect, depression and coherence. Analyzing the 95% confidence intervals of the indirect
effect suggested a positive indirect effect on happiness, life satisfaction, positive affect,
coherence and gratitude. This indicates that as prioritizing meaning increases, each of
these measures of well-being indicators increases as well. As expected, on negative affect
and depression, the 95% CI of the indirect effect indicated a negative association. In other
words, as prioritizing meaning increases, these two measures decrease. In addition, prior-
itizing meaning showed direct effects on life satisfaction and gratitude, suggesting prior-
itizing meaning is positively associated with these two measures both indirectly (through
presence of meaning) and directly. These effects held while controlling for age and gender
of the participants.
10.4 Prioritizing Meaning asaMediator Between Search forMeaning
andWell‑Being (Fig.2)
Prioritizing meaning was hypothesized to mediate the link between the search for mean-
ing and various well-being indicators. Eight mediation models (coefficients and stand-
ard errors) were conducted—one for each measure of well-being (including presence of
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Table 5 (continued)
Model 1 Model 2
B SE β B SE β
Gender − 0.25 0.16 − .09 − 0.33 0.14 − .12
Prioritizing positivity 0.01 0.09 .01
Prioritizing meaning 0.41 0.05 .55***
Change R2.07 .28
F for change in R29.66*** 52.70***
F final model R2 = .35, F(4243) = 33.24, p < .001.
Coherence
Age 0.02 0.01 .37*** 0.02 0.01 .28***
Gender − 0.18 0.10 − .11 − 0.19 0.10 − .11
Prioritizing positivity 0.13 0.06 .16*
Prioritizing meaning 0.09 0.03 .19*
Change R2.13 .08
F for change in R219.19*** 13.39***
F final model R2 = .21, F(4243) = 17.27, p < .001
Gratitude
Age 0.09 0.03 .18** 0.03 0.03 .07
Gender − 4.09 0.87 − .29*** − 4.33 0.80 − .30***
Prioritizing positivity 0.58 0.50 .08
Prioritizing meaning 1.40 0.28 .35***
R2.09 .15
F for change in R213.65*** 24.30***
F final model R2 = .24, F(4243) = 20.29, p < .001.

Prioritizing Meaning asaPathway toMeaning inLife and…
1 3
Table 6 The mediational role of presence of meaning, between prioritizing meaning and other well-being indicators
Standard errors in parentheses
*p < .05, **p < .01, *** p < .001
Happiness Life satisfaction Positive affect Negative affect Depression Coherence Gratitude
Prioritizing meaning .08 (.05) .17 (.05)*** .00 (03) − .05 (.03) .78 (.43) .01 (.03) .56 (.25)*
Presence of meaning .42 (.06)*** .49 (.07)*** .25 (.04)*** − .22 (.04)*** − 4.06 (.57)*** .18 (.04)*** 2.51 (.34)***
Age .01 (.00) − .01 (.01) − .00 (.00) − .01 (.00)** − .08 (.04) .02 (.00)*** .01 (.03)
Gender: female .45 (.14)** .02 (.15) − .08 (.08) − .13 (.09) .65 (1.25) .07 (.09) 3.58 (.73)***
Intercept 1.78 (.32)*** 1.54 (.34)*** 2.37 (.19)*** 4.12 (.21)*** 54.95 (2.89)*** 2.59 (.21)*** 13.65 (1.70)***
Indirect effect [95%
CI]
.17 (.03) [.11,.25] .20 (.04) [.13,.27] .10 (.02) [.07,.14] − .09 (.02) [− .13, − .05] − 1.66 (.32) [− 2.37,
− 1.09]
.08 (.02) [.04,.12] 1.03 (.18) [.70,1.42]
N 245 245 245 245 245 245 245
R2.33 .36 .23 .27 .23 .25 .39

P.Russo-Netzer
1 3
Table 7 The mediational role of prioritizing meaning, between search for meaning and well-being
Standard errors in parentheses. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Happiness Life satisf-action Positive affect Negative affect Depression Coherence Gratitude Presence of mean-
ing
Search for mean-
ing
− .01 (.05) − .10 (.06) − .03 (.03) .01 (.04) .77 (.50) − .07 (.03)* .51 (.29) .04 (.05)
Prioritizing
meaning
.26 (.04)*** .39 (.05)*** .11 (.03)*** − .15 (.03)*** − 1.06 (.40)** .10 (.03)*** 1.47 (.24)*** .40 (.04)***
Age .01 (.01)* − .00 (.01) .00 (.00) − .01 (.00)*** − .12 (.05)* .02 (.00)*** .04 (.03) .01 (.00)*
Gender: female .59 (.15)*** .20 (.16) .01 (.09) − .21 (.10)* − .84 (1.35) .14 (.09) 4.31 (.80)*** .32 (.14)*
Intercept 2.56 (.37)*** 2.71 (.39)*** 2.89 (.22)*** 3.67 (.24)*** 45.32 (3.36)*** 3.13 (.23)*** 16.49 (1.99)*** 1.65 (.34)***
Indirect Effect
[95% CI]
.09 (.03)
[.04,.15]
.13 (.04)
[.07,.22]
.04 (.01)
[.02,.07]
− .05 (.02) [− .09,
− .02]
− .36 (.17) [− .75,
− .10]
.03 (.01)
[.02,.06]
.50 (.16)
[.25,.89]
.14 (.04) [.07,.22]
N 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 245
R2.20 .22 .09 .19 .07 .20 .14 .36

Prioritizing Meaning asaPathway toMeaning inLife and…
1 3
meaning), while prioritizing meaning served as a mediator in the association between
search for meaning and well-being (see Table7). Two control variables were included in all
models: age and gender (a binary indicator for female). Mediation models were estimated
using model 4 of the Process Macro for SPSS(Hayes 2013), with bootstrapping of 5000
samples. In all but one model—coherence –prioritizing meaning was found to significantly
mediate the effect of search for meaning on all dependent measures of well-being (includ-
ing presence of meaning). Analyzing the 95% confidence intervals of the indirect effect
suggests a positive indirect effect on happiness, life satisfaction, positive affect, coherence,
gratitude and presence of meaning. As expected, on negative affect and depression, the
95% CI of the indirect effect indicates a negative association. Results also suggest that
search for meaning is related to coherence both indirectly through prioritizing meaning and
directly. The direct effect of search for meaning on coherence is negative, suggesting that
search for meaning is associated with sense of coherence via two paths simultaneously:
Search for meaning is positively related to coherence through the mediation of prioritiz-
ing meaning and at the same time search for meaning is negatively related to the sense of
coherence in life through a direct path. The effects detailed hold while controlling for age
and gender of respondents.
11 General Discussion
The present study aimed to expand the current understanding of meaning in life by explor-
ing the potential contribution of intentionally prioritizing activities and situations that are
conducive to experiencing meaning. Research on prioritizing positivity (Catalino et al.
2014), a construct linked to hedonic well-being, has demonstrated that individuals who
regularly seek out activities and contexts that evoke positive emotions and experiences in
their day-to-day lives may in fact be happier than those who do not. Based on these find-
ings, the present study applied this rationale to eudaimonic well-being, focusing on one key
part of it (meaning), and demonstrated that, as expected, prioritizing meaning is associated
with increased well-being. This is reflected in higher levels of positive affect, meaning in
life, happiness, coherence, gratitude and life satisfaction along with lower levels of nega-
tive characteristics such as depression and negative affect.
The findings are consistent with existing research stressing the complementary func-
tions of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being (e.g., Peterson etal. 2005), which is reflected
in their partly overlapping as well as distinct contributions to well-being (Huta and Ryan
2010). In line with this depiction, as indicated in Study 2, both prioritizing meaning and
prioritizing positivity were associated with hedonic and eudaimonic oriented well-being
indicators. This accords with the suggestion that individuals who seek out both positiv-
ity and meaning when they make decisions about where to invest effort in the context of
everyday life may gain both short-term (e.g., happiness and positive affect) and long-term
(e.g., coherence) benefits in building personal resources and overall well-being. The two
types of prioritization are related and this may be due to a similar potential mechanism that
underlies both types—that of actively creating the context or conditions to facilitate the
likelihood of desired experiences. Yet, despite this commonality, each also showed distinct
association with diverse well-being indicators, showing separate and added contributions
to benevolent outcomes. These findings accord with the view that the combination of hedo-
nia and eudaimonia, or their prioritizing, is more important to comprehensive well-being
than either of them separately (e.g., Huta and Ryan 2010; Peterson etal. 2005). Moreover,

P.Russo-Netzer
1 3
these findings underscore the potential significance and distinctiveness of prioritizing
meaning—the new construct conceptualized and empirically assessed in this paper.
Alongside mutual contributions, prioritizing meaning and prioritizing positivity also
showed distinct patterns. For example, when examined in tandem, only prioritizing positiv-
ity predicted less depression, although depression was associated with prioritizing mean-
ing when examined separately. As the measure used in this research, the CES-D, mostly
refers to behavioral symptoms (e.g., “my sleep was restless”) and affective aspects (e.g.,
“I felt sad”) experienced by individuals, it may be more sensitive to strategies aiming at
increasing positive affect through prioritization of pleasant and enjoyable activities in
everyday life, as previous research indicates (Catalino etal. 2014; Lewinsohn etal. 1980)
than prioritizing meaning. Future studies may need to consider depression with different
sources, that is, depression which is more cognitive-existential oriented (i.e., rooted in lack
of meaning) and depression which probably reflects characteristics of an affective disorder.
Furthermore, when both types of prioritizing were considered together, only prioritizing
meaning was found to be positively associated with gratitude and presence of meaning,
constructs that are essentially eudaimonic (e.g., Huta 2016; Wood etal. 2008) and thus
may more directly go hand in hand with prioritization of eudaimonic activities in everyday
life than with hedonic-oriented ones.
11.1 Presence ofMeaning asaPotential Mediator ofthePositive Eects
ofPrioritizing Meaning
This paper also sought to examine the connection between prioritizing meaning and pres-
ence of meaning. Although the present research design did not allow for causal inferences,
the findings accord with the notion that prioritizing meaning leads to the experience of
meaning which in turn mediates the beneficial effects of prioritizing meaning on a variety
of well-being indicators. These findings suggest that concrete plans and actions designed
to experience meaning could be successful and that the presence of meaning that could
result from such prioritizing might be a potential gateway to experiencing other aspects of
well-being.
For some well-being indicators, the analysis yielded a significant mediation effect (hap-
piness, positive affect, negative affect, depression and coherence), suggesting that presence
of meaning might be a central vehicle through which prioritizing meaning could contribute
to higher well-being in a variety of indicators. The findings, however, also demonstrated
concurrent direct effects of prioritizing meaning on some well-being indicators. These
included gratitude and life satisfaction, the latter of which is often conceived as a general
overarching well-being indicator (e.g., Lounsbury etal. 2005). These findings further sug-
gest that actively constructing one’s daily life to include meaningful activities may have
benevolent effects above and beyond the effects of the general and more abstract presence
of meaning. Namely, prioritizing meaning could result in positive outcomes even without
the conscious comprehension of what one’s meaning in life is.
Holding a set of personal values that gives one a sense of meaning or being familiar
with sources of meaning in life may not be the whole story. For example, if family is an
important source of meaning for a person, spending time with children thus grants this per-
son a sense of meaning. However, if this value is not translated into action through struc-
turing daily life accordingly, it may not benefit well-being (cf. Wong 2014). Furthermore,
individuals may engage in prioritizing family and children in their life without consciously
contemplating on the meaning in life that is associated with such pursuits—they just

Prioritizing Meaning asaPathway toMeaning inLife and…
1 3
experience it. This may relate to the existence of two distinct types of presence of meaning:
(1) “having meaning”—a more abstract sense of having an overall meaning in life, which is
more cognitive and includes being able to identify personal values and sources of meaning
and (2) “experiencing meaning”—a more concrete, experiential presence of meaning in
life. The experience of meaning is not the same as having a sense of meaning and prioritiz-
ing is more oriented towards experiencing meaning and embodying it in daily lives. This
suggests that there may be a need for more nuanced measures of presence of meaning dif-
ferentiating between two such types, as some people may understand the items as relating
to knowledge about life and its meaningful values and some may treat the items as refer-
ring to an experience of meaning.
Together it appears that to better elucidate the meaning in life construct, we might
need to pay attention to cognition (comprehension; “having meaning in life”), experience
(“experiencing meaning in life”), and activity (prioritizing meaning in life).
11.2 Prioritizing Meaning asaPotential Link betweentheSearch forMeaning
andWell‑being
The findings support the hypothesis that prioritizing meaning is an important mediator
between search for meaning and well-being. This suggests that individuals who actively
search for meaning and choose to anchor such searching in intentional behavior as part
of their daily routines may derive greater levels of well-being. The findings of the present
research thus can help us begin to unpack the complex associations of search for meaning
with a variety of outcomes (Steger and Kashdan 2007). Though the present studies used
a cross-sectional design and hence causal paths cannot be deduced, actively searching for
meaning appears to translate to an increase in the individual’s likelihood of intentionally
prioritizing potentially meaningful activities in day-to-day life, which as discussed in the
previous section, is positively associated with benevolent outcomes. The current findings
also demonstrate that searching, which does not go through prioritizing meaning, is nega-
tively associated with sense of coherence, as an indicator of healthy functioning.
These findings may help to explain why searching for meaning may not always lead
to positive outcomes as has been found in a number of studies (e.g., Steger etal. 2006;
Steger etal. 2008b) even though it is considered an inherent human motivation (Frankl
1963; Steger etal. 2011). Furthermore, it may also assist in extending previous attempts
to discern a healthy or unhealthy search for meaning (e.g. Steger etal. 2008). As has been
suggested, the search for meaning may function as a state of mind or a schema, enabling
the individual to identify information relevant to meaning in life (cf. Steger etal. 2011),
reflecting individual differences in motivation (Frankl 1963; Maddi 1970): “Across people,
regardless of how they construe meaning or where they are searching for it, being more
concerned with searching for meaning in life seems to highlight the importance of mean-
ing relevant information” (Steger etal. 2011; p. 179). In this context, prioritizing meaning
may reflect the specific, active and concrete implementation of such intention or schema,
through the planning and decision-making that weave meaningful activities and situations
into daily life routines. Thus, searching which results in active attempts to identify situa-
tions which have the potential to provide meaning (i.e., prioritizing meaning) may be asso-
ciated with other positive outcomes. In contrast, searching that is not tied to specific actions
or decisions may be associated with negative outcomes or would not affect well-being. The
mostly nonsignificant associations between the search for meaning and well-being indica-
tors in the present studies as well as in other studies (e.g., Steger etal. 2008) may conceal

P.Russo-Netzer
1 3
two opposing processes—one leading to positive and the other leading to negative out-
comes. Future research may need to investigate this possibility and try to disentangle these
two hypothetical processes.
11.3 The Importance ofCulture
Previous research has indicated that the interplay between search for meaning and positive
versus negative outcomes is affected by culture (Steger et al. 2008). Hence it is impor-
tant to recognize cultural nuances in the manner in which individuals across various con-
texts understand and experience the search for, presence of and prioritizing of meaning, as
well as prioritizing positivity and their relationship. In the context of the present study, the
sample was diverse and heterogeneous, allowing the study to extend beyond the previous
reliance on undergraduate samples which represent restricted age and education ranges.
However, all participants were from a Western, moderately individualized culture. Further-
more, the Israeli context where the study took place may have additional unique character-
istics that underscore the potential salience, significance and importance of searching for
meaning in life as well as its prioritization. These cultural characteristics include, for exam-
ple, the prominence of existential threats, a sense of collective vulnerability, uncertainty,
and insecurity all coupled with dialectic identity and worldviews as part of a multicultural
immigrant society (e.g., Ezrachi 2004). Thus, it is possible that the notion of meaning in
life, its search and prioritization may hold high value in Israeli society. This might be one
reason why searching for meaning which in North American samples is negatively associ-
ated with well-being indicators, yet in the Israeli samples was either not significantly corre-
lated with them or was positively associated with some of them. The notions of meaning in
life, its search and prioritization may have different functions and levels of salience across
diverse range of cultures and societies. Given that culture plays an important role in indi-
viduals’ values, assumptions and needs (Markus and Kitayama 1991), future work needs
to address different cultures and populations to further explore how people understand and
consider meaning while making decisions and choices concerning their everyday activities.
11.4 The Centrality ofActions andDirected Pursuit inPrioritizing
The abstract and multifaceted nature of the construct of meaning in life (MIL) has been
previously noted by scholars (e.g., George and Park 2016; Martela and Steger 2016). It
appears that when the rather ambiguous, complex and abstract construct of meaning in
life is considered in terms of priorities, it can be more easily understood and especially
cultivated through the choices one makes in day-to-day life. In the words of Viktor Frankl,
“what matters is not the meaning in life in general, but rather the specific meaning of a
person’s life at a given moment” (1963, p. 131). In Frankl’s (1963) view, meaning is mani-
fested in what individuals choose to do with their lives. Wong (2010) also voiced this view
regarding actively applying meaning to everyday life, stressing the importance of acting in
accordance with one’s values, beyond cognitive comprehension and emotional importance
of meaning.
In line with this depiction, people who were committed to self-generated personal pro-
jects (Little 1983) that reflected their guiding values and identity reported higher levels of
meaning in life (McGregor and Little 1998). Prioritizing meaning—assessed by items such
as “the manner in which I organize my day reflects values that are meaningful to me” or “I

Prioritizing Meaning asaPathway toMeaning inLife and…
1 3
choose and prefer activities which stimulate a sense of value and meaning”—tap into how
individuals make choices regarding their time to actively nurture a more meaningful life.
Daily behaviors are malleable and can be adapted (e.g. Gollwitzer 1999). Yet time is
a limited resource and how and where individuals choose to allocate their time conveys
what they seek to accomplish in life (Csikszentmihalyi 1997). Priorities, thus, are essen-
tially defined by the choices individuals consciously make regarding how to spend their
time or where to invest it. The findings of the present research underscore the possibility
that meaning can be shaped, experienced and lived through the daily activities and interac-
tions one chooses to be involved with. Through prioritizing meaning, it may be possible
for one to take ownership of cultivating and experiencing a meaningful life. In this sense,
prioritizing meaning may offer a possible practice for proactive meaning development and
enhancement that goes beyond reactive perspectives of meaning restoration (Steger 2012).
Focusing on and prioritizing engagement in activities that are inherently value-congruent
may serve as a tangible and concrete vehicle to imbuing life with meaning and offer a
promising route to experiencing well-being.
The capability to prioritize meaningful activities in daily life appears to constitute a sig-
nificant yet intricate process that requires not only intrinsic choice, but also continuous
reflection and examination in order to make self-concordant and personally appropriate
decisions. Self-awareness is thus vital in discerning personal values, aligning daily choices
of activities accordingly and refining such choices through detecting potential shifts of
meaning. Such an ongoing process enables individuals to shape and cultivate a sense of
personal meaning which is authentic, personally relevant and rooted in everyday experi-
ence. Through actively organizing daily routines to include meaningful activities, individu-
als can become aware of what is personally meaningful and of value to them, consciously
focus their intention and energies to invest in them, and eventually contribute to their well-
being. Prioritizing meaning may therefore be a useful construct to increase understanding
of the role of these intentional activities and what it means to live a eudaimonic lifestyle.
12 Limitations andSuggestions forFuture Research
This study has several limitations that should be taken into consideration. All surveys were
self-reported, a method which may be suitable for assessing personal motivations and sub-
jective experiences (e.g., Sheldon and Lyubomirsky 2007), but could also lead to some
biases in participants’ responses. Future research could include peer-reports or behavio-
ral measures in order to strengthen the associations found with well-being variables and
provide further evidence beyond the limitations of self-reporting methods. Furthermore,
it is worthwhile to consider using mixed methods in future research, as qualitative meth-
ods may contribute to discovering other layers of human experience and richness within
the data that was less apparent in quantitative research (e.g., the two kinds of presence of
meaning), thus facilitating broadened understanding of people’s perceptions, experiences
and cultural factors (Delle Fave etal. 2011). As an individual and unique process, forging
a sense of meaning may take a fluctuating variety of patterns and pathways. Taking note of
such varieties, nuances and individual differences is important when exploring such pro-
cesses as different people may view and describe their understanding of meaning in rather
diverse ways.
Furthermore, future research should consider expanding previous attempts to map out
the vast and multifaceted area of the motivational aspects with regard to meaning and

P.Russo-Netzer
1 3
well-being, by exploring potential associations between prioritizing meaning and other
measures of well-being orientations/priorities, such as the Orientations to Happiness
scale (OTHQ; Peterson etal. 2005) and the Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives for Activi-
ties scale (HEMA; Huta and Ryan 2010). Although these measures address orientation
and may seem close, they appear to illuminate complementary aspects of the motivational
process (e.g., seeking rather than prioritizing). Future research may need to address the
nuanced landscape of motivations leading individuals to experience well-being in their life.
Finally, these results are correlational and are based on cross-sectional research. Hence
causal directionality implied here should be examined with longitudinal designs or inter-
vention and experimental research to further validate and refine this newly developed meas-
ure of prioritizing meaning. For example, future research could develop methods of manip-
ulating the prioritizing of meaning in order to examine causality. Future research may also
include empirical testing of possible interventions to advance prioritizing of meaning, such
as utilizing daily diary methods (e.g., Bolger, Davis and Rafaeli 2003). Similarly, future
research may also examine the two suggested developmental processes related to search
for meaning—one associated with higher well-being and the other with lower well-being.
Overall, despite the aforementioned limitations, this study extends existing literature by
offering insights regarding the importance of exploring the effect of actively prioritizing
meaning in day-to-day life with regard to individuals’ sense of meaning in life and well-
being. The findings imply potential practical implications for the development of thera-
peutic, organizational and educational interventions that may assist in scaffolding the pri-
oritization of significant activities and behaviors to self-generate increased meaning and
well-being.
References
Anaby, D., Jarus, T., & Zumbo, B. D. (2010). Psychometric evaluation of the Hebrew language version of
the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Social Indicators Research, 96(2), 267–274.
Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unraveling the mystery of health: How people manage stress and stay well. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings of life. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of
Psychology, 54, 579–616.
Catalino, L. I., Algoe, S. B., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2014). Positivity: An effective approach to pursuing hap-
piness? Emotion, 14(6), 1155–1161.
Central Bureau of Statistics. (2015). Statistical abstract of Israel 2015: annual data—2. Population.
Resource document. Central Bureau of Statistics. http://www.cbs.gov.il/reade r/shnat on/shnat one_new.
htm?CYear =2015&Vol=66&CSubj ect=2. Accessed 1 September 2016.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Datu, J. A. D. (2015). Validating the revised self-construal scale in the Philippines. Current Psychology,
34(4), 626–633.
de St. Aubin, E. (2013). Generativity and the meaning of life. In J. Hicks & C. Routledge (Eds.), The experi-
ence of meaning in life. Dordrecht: Springer.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: An introduction. Journal of Hap-
piness Studies, 9(1), 1–11.
Delle Fave, A., Brdar, I., Freire, T., Vella-Brodrick, D., & Wissing, M. P. (2011). The eudaimonic and
hedonic components of happiness: Qualitative and quantitative findings. Social Indicators Research,
100(2), 185–207.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York, NY: Norton.

Prioritizing Meaning asaPathway toMeaning inLife and…
1 3
Eriksson, M., & Lindstrom, B. (2005). Validity of Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale: A systematic
review. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Healthy, 59(6), 460–466.
Ezrachi, E. (2004). The quest for spirituality among secular Israelis. In U. Rebhun & C. I. Waxman (Eds.),
Jews in Israel: Contemporary social and cultural patterns (pp. 315–328). Hanover, NH: University
Press of New England.
Ford, B. Q., & Mauss, I. B. (2014). The paradoxical effects of pursuing positive emotion: When and why
wanting to feel happy backfires. In J. Gruber & J. T. Moskowitz (Eds.), Positive emotion: Integrating
the light sides and dark sides (pp. 363–381). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Frankl, V. E. (1963). Man’s search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy. New York: Washington
Square Press.
Friedman, E. M. (2012). Well-being, aging, and immunity. In S. Segerstrom (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of
psychoneuroimmunology (pp. 37–62). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
George, L. S., & Park, C. L. (2016). Meaning in life as comprehension, purpose, and mattering: Toward
integration and new research questions. Review of General Psychology, 20(3), 205–220.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist,
54(7), 493–503.
Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Handbook of emotion regulation. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-
based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Huta, V. (2016). Eudaimonic and hedonic orientations: Theoretical considerations and research findings. In
J. Vittersø (Ed.), Handbook of Eudaimonic well-being (pp. 215–231). Cham: Springer.
Huta, V., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Pursuing pleasure or virtue? The differential and overlapping well-being
benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 735–762.
Huta, V., & Waterman, A. S. (2014). Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia: Developing a classifica-
tion and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 15(6), 1425–1456.
Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (Eds.). (1999). Well-being: Foundations of hedonic psychology.
New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 43, 207–222.
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(1), 179–196.
Lewinsohn, P. M., Sullivan, J. M., & Grosscup, S. J. (1980). Changing reinforcing events: An approach to
the treatment of depression. Psychotherapy: Theory. Research and Practice, 17, 322–334.
Little, B. R. (1983). Personal projects: A rationale and method for investigation. Environment and Behavior,
15(3), 273–309.
Littman-Ovadia, H., & Steger, M. (2010). Character strengths and well-being among volunteers and employ-
ees: Toward an integrative model. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(6), 419–430.
Lounsbury, J. W., Saudargas, R. A., Gibson, L. W., & Leong, F. T. (2005). An investigation of broad and
narrow personality traits in relation to general and domain-specific life satisfaction of college students.
Research in Higher Education, 46(6), 707–729.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and
construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46(2), 137–155.
Maddi, S. R. (1970). The search for meaning. In M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp.
137–186). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and moti-
vation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.
Martela, F., & Steger, M. F. (2016). The three meanings of meaning in life: Distinguishing coherence,
purpose, and significance. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11, 1–15.
Massimini, F., & Delle Fave, D. A. (2000). Individual development in a bio-cultural perspective. Ameri-
can Psychologist, 55(1), 24–33.
Mauss, I. B., Tamir, M., Anderson, C. L., & Savino, N. S. (2011). Can seeking happiness make people
unhappy? Paradoxical effects of valuing happiness. Emotion, 11, 807–815.
May, R. (1967). Psychology and the human dilemma. New York, NY: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc.
McAdams, D. P., & de St Aubin, E. (1992). A theory of generativity and its assessment through self-
report, behavioural acts, and narrative themes in autobiography. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 62(6), 1003–1015.
McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J. (2002). The grateful disposition: A conceptual and
empirical topography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 112–127.

P.Russo-Netzer
1 3
McGregor, I., & Little, B. R. (1998). Personal projects, happiness, and meaning: On doing well and
being yourself. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 494–512.
Nave, C. S., Sherman, R. A., & Funder, D. C. (2008). Beyond self-report in the study of hedonic and
eudaimonic well-being: Correlations with acquaintance reports, clinician judgments and directly
observed social behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(3), 643–659.
Park, N., Park, M., & Peterson, C. (2010). When is the search for meaning related to life satisfaction?
Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 2(1), 1–13.
Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Orientations to happiness and life satisfaction: The
full life versus the empty life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 25–41.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general popu-
lation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 386–401.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic
and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.
Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Living well: A self-determination theory perspective on
eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 139–170.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-
being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081.
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (1998). The contours of positive human health. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 1–28.
Ryff, C. D., Singer, B. H., & Dienberg Love, G. (2004). Positive health: Connecting well-being with
biology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences,
359(1449), 1383–1394.
Schnell, T. (2009). The sources of meaning and meaning in life questionnaire (SoMe): Relations to
demographics and well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(6), 483–499.
Schooler, J. W., Ariely, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). The pursuit and assessment of happiness can be
self-defeating. In J. C. I. Brocas (Ed.), The Psychology of Economic Decisions (Vol. I, pp. 41–70).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scollon, C. N., & King, L. A. (2004). Is the good life the easy life? Social Indicators Research, 68,
127–162.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness. New York, NY: Free Press.
Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2007). Is it possible to become happier? (And if so, how?). Social
and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 129–145.
Steger, M. F. (2012). Experiencing meaning in life. In P. T. P. Wong (Ed.), The human quest for meaning
(pp. 165–184). NY: Routledge.
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 Psychology, 53, 80–93.
Steger, M. F., & Kashdan, T. B. (2007). Stability and specificity of meaning in life and life satisfaction
over one year. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 161–179.
Steger, M. F., Kashdan, T. B., & Oishi, S. (2008a). Being good by doing good: Daily eudaimonic activ-
ity and well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 22–42.
Steger, M. F., Kashdan, T. B., Sullivan, B. A., & Lorentz, D. (2008b). Understanding the search for
meaning in life: Personality, 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., Oishi, S., & Kesebir, S. (2011). Is a life without meaning satisfying? The moderating role of
the search for meaning in satisfaction with life judgments. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6(3),
173–180.
Temane, Q. M., & Wissing, M. P. (2006). The role of subjective perceptions of health in the dynamics of
context and psychological well-being. South African Journal of Psychology, 36(3), 564–581.
Vanhoutte, B. (2014). The multidimensional structure of subjective well-being in later life. Journal of Popu-
lation Ageing, 7(1), 1–20.
Vittersø, J., Overwien, P., & Martinsen, E. (2009). Pleasure and interest are differentially affected by replay-
ing versus analyzing a happy life moment. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 14–20.
Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia)
and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 678–691.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of posi-
tive and negative affect: The PANAS scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6),
1063–1070.

Prioritizing Meaning asaPathway toMeaning inLife and…
1 3
Wong, P. T. P. (1998). Implicit theories of meaningful life and the development of the personal meaning
profile. In P. T. P. Wong & P. S. Fry (Eds.), The human quest for meaning (pp. 111–140). Mahwah:
Erlbaum.
Wong, P. T. (2010). Meaning therapy: An integrative and positive existential psychotherapy. Journal of
Contemporary Psychotherapy, 40(2), 85–93.
Wong, P. T. (2014). Viktor Frankl’s meaning-seeking model and positive psychology. In A. Batthyanny &
P. Russo-Netzer (Eds.), Meaning in positive and existential psychology (pp. 149–184). New York, NY:
Springer.
Wood, A. M., Joseph, S., & Maltby, J. (2008). Gratitude uniquely predicts satisfaction with life: Incremental
validity above the domains and facets of the five factor model. Personality and Individual Differences,
45, 49–54.