Developing the Meaning of Life Model: Introduction of the Main Components of the Model Structure

1. Introduction

In spite of 120 years of psychological science, and almost 25 years of positive psychology existence, yet the only practical thing creating an actionable methodology for finding or expanding meaning of life can be find in the concept of logotherapy formulated by Viktor Emil Frankl (Marshall & Marshall, 2012). Nevertheless, logotherapy using the method of logo analysis (Schulenberg, Nassif & Rogina, 2008) is not a universal method that deals with the meaning of human life. The reasons for this are the low availability of this method - not all groups of the population can afford long-term therapy and treatments. Failure to work with personal meaning may lead to a state of existential crisis (Längle, 2008), which can result in a mental health problem (Glaw, Hazelton, Kable, & Inder, 2020). The problems of mental health are one of the main goals and areas of work in human development. Inability to provide an efficient help in this area leaves great consequences on humanity: a colossal waste of money (billions of euros per year); the level of depression is one of the main causes of disability; suicide is the second leading cause of death among young people aged 15-29; people with severe mental illnesses die prematurely - two decades earlier (World Health Organization, 2019). Therefore, it is necessary to understand at what point a person loses meaning, purpose and direction in life (Gao & McLellan, 2018), and when one begins to execute undesirable behavior (Leath, 1999). One of the ways how we can start to help these people is understanding the antecedents of the crisis. In the 1960s with the beginning of applied behavior analysis, nowadays well-known Antecedent-Behavior-Consequence (A-B-C) analysis was introduced to the public (Bijou, Peterson & Ault, 1968). Within this concept, we want to understand specific effects of antecedents on finding or losing meaning of life. Previously in the pilot study (Dombrovskis, 2017) it was determined that antecedents are playing a significant role in the journey of seeking of personal meaning of life. However, it is not clear yet, how many and which antecedents affect one’s meaning of life.

Idea of the pilot study suggests that meaning of life allows to reach a certain level in which a person’s life becomes consistent - clear, manageable and meaningful. Consistency increases self-efficacy, flexibility, optimism, self-confidence or understanding (Grevenstein, Aguilar-Raab & Bluemke, 2018). In order to help people, achieve a consistency in life even when in crisis, it is necessary by specialists to offer a practical solution which would pinpoint exact steps what to do. We believe that the solution would be action-based model which allows for every average person to find and pursuit their personal meaning of life.

The subject of research includes factors, which expands the previously identified list of antecedents. The aim of this study was to confirm or dismiss if current results are consistent with previous pilot study.

2. Theory

Meaning of Life

A marker of a state of psychological well-being is a feeling of happiness (Ryff, 1989). The secret of human happiness lies in the individual’s ability to get pleasure while protecting himself from the life’s challenges. Happiness can only be achieved by developing a defense mechanism (Freud, 1993). For example, in a sample of depressed patients, there is evidence that awareness of the meaning of personal life can be a defense mechanism (Zeng et al., 2021).

The reason for the question of the actualization of the meaning of life is the incorrectly formed structure of human relations (Horney, 1977). A person’s life in a society creates problems in areas like work, professional self-determination, interpersonal relations, cooperation, friendship, relationship of opposite sex, love and marriage (Adler, 1998). When people are faced with global problems like this, the impossibility of solving them creates a state of existential vacuum - neurosis associated with apathy, depression and loss of interest in life (Laengle & Wurm, 2018). This means that the phenomenon of the meaning of life occurs when a person faces global problems in his or her life (Shon, Barton-Bellessa, 2015) and changes are needed to overcome them.

Circumstances related to global problems and challenges are: 1) in the conditions of determining personal space, in search of one’s role in society (Talay & Coninck, 2020); 2) during the reorganization period of life, when the previous lifestyle does not allow to achieve results. One is aware that by continuing his/ her old lifestyle, one will not achieve new and real success (Kreitler, 2019); 3) For many people, a difficult phase of change begins at the end of a certain period of life, in which a return to the basic values of life begins. This can lead to serious problems of meaning (feeling like nobody needs you, feeling powerless, loss or decreasing of self-esteem) (Macintyre et al., 2019); 4) experiencing death anxiety by witnessing a death, an inseparable disease or aging during the period of going through a death-related process (Maxfield et al., 2014)

Meaning Therapy was founded in 1946 by Victor Frankl. It is a therapy designed to find the meaning of life and deal with the existing existential vacuum (Bano, 2018). According to Frankl, the meaning of life is a certain process in which a responsible choice of action is made to solve global problems (Frankl, 1984).

So far, there is no strong opinion and unity in the literature on how to perceive the meaning of life. Overall, the meaning of life can be seen from the perspective of two sciences. Philosophy attempts to answer the question: "Why does a particular person exist in the world?", which can be applied to the concept of "meaning of life". On the other hand, psychology attempts to answer the question: "Why did a person perform certain actions, processes?" and usually associates the meaning of life with goals, values, motives, and needs. This direction can be applied to the concept of "meaning in life". In our opinion, it is worthwhile to develop further the view of the science of psychology and coin the term "meaning of life" within psychology community. Life is a dynamic phenomenon, conditions and life situations are subject to constant change, so the results are not constant and consistent. We will not gain an understanding of the necessary processes for overcoming the existential vacuum, if remain confined to an understanding of outcome, life goals, and motives, without understanding the complexities that have led people to crisis (Yaspers, 1991).

Analyzing the presented authors, it can be concluded that in order to get answers about the meaning of life, it is more important to study the whole process that a person wants to achieve with his / her actions (Debats et all., 1995; Martela & Steger, 2016). For example, not to identify motives, but to find out how they are integrated into life. To the question "What is the meaning of life in general, why do I live?" no answer will ever be found, but understanding the process is possible. A definite, structured model can help to summarize the steps needed to understand this process so that people can achieve a sense of meaningful life (Yaspers, 1991).

If we assume that the process itself is a means of overcoming the existential vacuum, then it is necessary to return to Frankl’s idea and identify the components of a dynamic process (which activates the choice, how the choice is made and what actions are to be taken) and make the meaning of life definition more applicable to solve global problems. This means that the information about components and definition must help to analyze a person’s personal life and thus lead to a possible solution. In order to achieve this goal, a model of this dynamic process needs to be developed with all of containing components which would construct the basis of the Meaning of Life Model.

A critical analysis of the literature identified the following components of the Meaning of Life Model: 1) antecedent (Wong, 2011; Steger, 2016; Burrow et al., 2010; Purvis, 2010); 2) individual behavioral styles (Nutten, 2004; Akhmerov, 2015; Gavrilova, 2015; Kuznetsova & Osin, 2015); 3) life space - spheres of functioning (Kumasheva, 2015; Bach, Heritier, Jean-Jacques, 2020; Shon, Barton-Bellessa, 2015; Walborn, 2014; Häfner, 2015; Chaplynska, 2020).

If the construct consists of three components, then at this stage it is possible to formulate the following definition of the meaning of life: The meaning of human life is the realization of an individual style of behavior in the life space, which is actualized by a certain antecedent. The result of the behavior is the achievement of psychological well-being, that is, life becomes important, the person returns to a stable emotional state, the activity takes place in the person’s self-realization.

Current study will look at the first component of the model - antecedents that activate the desired behavior.

Antecedents

The concept of A-B-C analysis includes desire to prevent the undesirable behavior by changing the antecedent. In the behavioral studies antecedent refers to the stimuli or activity that occurs immediately before the behavior (O’Reilly et al., 2012). For example, certain antecedent activates or stimulates actions to stabilize a person’s emotional state in a crisis situation and to achieve a balance between the causes of the crisis and daily processes.

A pilot study on the structure of the model of meaning of life (Dombrovskis, 2017) based on 72 dispositions have been confirmed eight antecedents that are constituent indicators of individual styles of behavior in crisis: achievements; power; success; development; freedom; uniqueness; interesting life; fleeing.

To add more additional factors to the previously identified list of antecedents, a critical literature analysis was performed. The analysis of the literature used the principle that the newly identified antecedents trigger only desirable actions that could not harm others and the person himself. This principle is based on an ethical concept from The Good Lives Model (Ward, Gannon & Vess, 2009). To be consistent with this principle, every factor has to be in line with these requirements: 1) uniqueness – created by a person himself by way of conversion of personal experience (Karpinskiy, 2015); 2) versatility – implementation may manifest via endeavors, as substructures (Poehlmann, 2006; Schnell, 2011); 3) awareness – understanding of the goal and expected result is present (Wong, 2011); 4) self-serving behavior – complete involvement in the process of implementation, achieving and maintaining the result is taking place (Kumisheva 2015; Wong, 2011).

A total of eight such factors that come into play by hindering or activating were distinguished: family relations; level of income; relations with friends/acquaintances; state of health; organization of free time; career growth (achievements); sexual life quality; level of education acquired.

The first factor: family relations. Close family relations characterized by high level of intimacy trigger a great deal of strong positive and negative emotional experiences, stresses (Horowitz & Strack, 2011; Regan, 2011). Presence of family relations is a factor that can trigger the behavior which aims to protect all involved family members, basically making them more resistant (Karney & Bradbury, 2005; Bodenmann & Randall, 2012). This means that relationships with loved ones affect what we want to achieve in life - we take into account their needs.

The second factor: level of income. Studies have demonstrated slowdown of behavioral activity (characterized by inactivity) occurs with the reduction of income and a strong interrelation with increased tension and distress (St-Pierre et al., 2019; Tremblay et al., 2006). Consequently, the level of income can impact the level of activity – low level of income can result in complete refusal of actions with a goal to realize the meaning of life.

The third factor: friendly relationships. Results of prolonged studies demonstrate that poor quality friendships and lower level of perceptual social support bring, with time, the increase of social uneasiness (Rapee et al., 2015; Rodebaugh et al., 2015). People maintaining successful and friendly relationships are expressing more high levels of self-control (Piccirillo et al., 2020), meaning that friendship is a factor that can affect the choice of behavior depending on its impact to the friends.

The fourth factor: state of health. A person with high level of health will typically activate actions allowing demonstrating high level of resistance against susceptibility to suggestion and minimizing the conflict between personal wishes and long-term goals (Hofmann et al., 2012; Luehring-Jones, Tahaney, & Palfai, 2018). Therefore, the level of someone’s health can impact the uniqueness of the meaning – the more improved health, the less stereotypical and social is likely to be the core of the meaning.

The fifth factor: free time. People preferring spending leisure time in a passive way (such as watching TV lying on the sofa) will be characterized by activation of behavior related to high level of avoiding responsibility (Kelly et al., 2020; Belair et al., 2018). It means that how you spend your free time is as a factor which car either mitigate or increase the risk to activate the action with the goal to pursuit the meaning of life.

The sixth factor: career. In order to integrate behavior used for managing the advancement of own career into own lifestyle, the individual behavior (Chan et al., 2012; Brown & Lent, 2017) must be built on the ability of self-regulation under circumstances that may be hard, complicated and ambiguous (Coetzee & Schreuder, 2017). Activation of the style of behavior of people making great success in career growth will be distinguished by meaningfulness and self-efficiency (Carmen et al., 2019).

The seventh factor: sexual life quality. Studies confirm maintaining interest and activity in sexual behavior until great age: masturbation, cheating, risky behavior on the internet (Baumgartner et al., 2010; Beutel et al., 2008; DeLamater & Moorman, 2007). Based on the results of research, the quality of sexual life always remains as an indicator of activation when choosing the style of behavior in interaction with other people throughout the entire life (Vance et al., 2019).

The eighth factor: education. Activation of the style of behavior of a person with higher level and quality of education will be characterized by persistence, high consciousness and passion for meeting the objectives (Rimfeld et al., 2016; Duckworth & Gross, 2014).

It is very important to understand that newly identified antecedents are components of the person’s life space. The life space means a person and their psychological environment. Every new antecedent can both activate the action and affect its quality. Meaning that quality state of life space and feeling of accomplishment of the meaning of life depend on the antecedents.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Measures

To collect an information about the antecedents, a research questionnaire Meaning of life scale (MOLS) was developed, and it included a survey by means of closed questions. The research questionnaire includes a “Antecedents scale” developed by the author Valērijs Dombrovskis. The structure of survey includes two parts: the purpose of the first part is to collect information on the significance of the antecedents in the lives of the respondents, while the second is to collect information on the demographic characteristics of the respondents. The first part contains 16 statements based on:

1. 

8 antecedents confirmed during the pilot study: achievements; power; success; development; freedom; uniqueness; interesting life; fleeing;

2. 

8 new antecedents based on the literature review, which affect activation of certain behavior: family relations; level of income; relations with friends/acquaintances; state of health; organization of free time; career growth (achievements); sexual life quality; quality of education received.

In the second part the following demographic variables were examined – income, educational level, sex, age, occupation and marital status.

The task of the respondents was to evaluate each factor’s level of significance in their lives. Responses were limited to a Likert-like scale using the following: no significance (0), slight significance (1), moderate significance (2), high significance (3) or total significance (4). The answers received were processed based on the following methods of analysis: exploratory factor analysis; SEM – structural equation modeling; confirmatory factor analysis; cluster analysis.

3.2. Procedure

Data of the study was gathered in 2021, from August to November, inclusive. A large portion of the group of respondents was formed by users of social media who completed the questionnaire electronically (59.3%), the smaller portion were approached frontally and individually (40.7%). In all cases, completing the questionnaire was voluntary, anonymous and without controlling the time for completion. Where necessary, the researcher could provide answers to any questions arising for the participant. Feedback to respondents, who had expressed such a wish, was provided within one week.

3.3. Data Analysis

Factor analysis was used to identify the underlying dimensions of the MOLS, using various criteria for item selection according to the number of selected factors and item factor loadings. Factor differentiation method: principal component method. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. In order to verify some assumptions, prior to exploratory factor analysis (EFA), we analyzed the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin’s (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy to assess if the items were significantly correlated and shared sufficient variance to justify factor extraction.

The reliability of the scale, in terms of internal consistency, was calculated by means of the alpha coefficient. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using maximum likelihood (ML) estimation procedures. To assess the closeness of the hypothetical model to the empirical data statistically, multiple goodness-of-fit indexes were used, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Bentler and Bonnet (1980) contend that values >0.90 indicate good fit for the TLI (Hu & Bentler 1999) contend that CFI values >0.90 are needed; and Byrne (1994) contends that a cutoff of 0.93 should indicate a good fit. Several aspects of concurrent validity were verified using the Pearson’s r coefficient.

4. Results

4.1. Participants

In due course of research, there were 1163 questionnaires distributed among the residents of Latvia and collected; a small number of questionnaires (53, which accounts for 4.5% of the total number) were found invalid, the main reason being only partial completion of questionnaires. There were 1110 respondents (633 women, 57%, and 477 men, 43%) participating further in the study. Age of respondents varied from 18 to 67 (M=33.88; SD =8,527). Participants were selected from the groups of people who were currently experiencing significant changes in their lives, therefore seeking for their personal meaning of life. Based on the theoretical notion of the expression of the meaning-seeking activity in the conditions of the existential vacuum, participants were: prisoners; clients of the State Employment Agency (SEA); clients of crisis centers; people who use the services of psychologists and therapists; bachelor students; nursing home residents; rehabilitation center patients.

Detailed social and demographical characteristics of the respondents are provided in Table 1. This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn.

4.2. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

Exploratory factor analysis was carried out for the meaning of minimizing dimensionality in the space of universal motives and circumstances.

Details of the suitability of data for structure detection are provided in Table 2. The factor analysis should be seen fit if KMO is within a range from 0.5 to 1. In the particular case, this indicator equals to 0.766 (approximately 76,6%), which is a sufficiently normal result and indicates that a factor analysis may be useful with data.

The results of the Bartlett’s test allow us to make a conclusion on whereas factor analysis is suitable choice for the sample of the study. The statistics determining feasibility of the factor analysis according to the Bartlett’s test is signification. If the level of signification is acceptable (under 0.05), the factor analysis is deemed feasible for analyzing the researched selected aggregate. In our case, the test in question demonstrates the acceptable level of signification (less than 0.001), which leads to the conclusion regarding feasibility of the factor analysis.

Exploratory factor analysis allowed exposing a 3-factor structure of the researched phenomenon: F1; F2; F3. The first of the distinguished factors explains 20.78% of the total dispersion, the second one – 18.26%, the third one – 16.15%.

Table 3. Factor structure matrix of the MOLS.

Item/ Variable	F1	F2	F3
Quality of education I16	0.749	0.230	-0.176
Achievements I4	0.724	0.029	-0.034
Level of income I10	0.663	-0.005	0.415
Relationship with the family I9	0.645	-0.016	0.075
Luck I3	0.557	0.084	0.285
Uniqueness I6	0.543	0.304	-0.207
Organizing free time in own life I13	0.533	0.521	-0.031
Development I1	-0.013	-0.889	0.044
Fleeing I8	0.122	0.694	0.030
Career growth (achievements) I14	0.085	0.624	0.471
Relationship with friends / acquaintances I11	0.040	0.618	-0.039
Freedom I5	0.339	0.355	0.304
Power I2	0.240	0.005	0.844
State of health I12	0.269	0.425	0.722
Quality of sexual life I15	0.291	0.098	-0.680
Interesting life I7	0.380	0.370	-0.485

Source: Dombrovskis.

Table 3. Factor structure matrix of the MOLS.

Item/ Variable	F1	F2	F3
Quality of education I16	0.749	0.230	-0.176
Achievements I4	0.724	0.029	-0.034
Level of income I10	0.663	-0.005	0.415
Relationship with the family I9	0.645	-0.016	0.075
Luck I3	0.557	0.084	0.285
Uniqueness I6	0.543	0.304	-0.207
Organizing free time in own life I13	0.533	0.521	-0.031
Development I1	-0.013	-0.889	0.044
Fleeing I8	0.122	0.694	0.030
Career growth (achievements) I14	0.085	0.624	0.471
Relationship with friends / acquaintances I11	0.040	0.618	-0.039
Freedom I5	0.339	0.355	0.304
Power I2	0.240	0.005	0.844
State of health I12	0.269	0.425	0.722
Quality of sexual life I15	0.291	0.098	-0.680
Interesting life I7	0.380	0.370	-0.485

Source: Dombrovskis.

4.3. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

Conducting the confirmatory factor analysis uses the same data file, with respect to which the traditional factor analysis was applied. The 3-factor structure of the researched phenomenon exposed as the result of the exploratory factor analysis may be presented as a hypothetical model consisting of three parts, each of which corresponds to one of the factors exposed. The largest factor loads calculated as the result of conducting the confirmatory factor analysis under the factor F1 (process) feature such indicators as I16 (Uniqueness), I4 (Achievements), I9 (Relationship with the family), I3 (Luck). The dominating factor loads under the factor F2 (emotional experience) demonstrate indicators I13 (Organizing free time in own life), I8 (Fleeing), I14 (Career growth). Factor F3 (preservation/ protection of personal settings) is determined by indicators I2 (Power), I12 (State of health), I10 (Level of income).

The goodness-of-fit for this model: comparative fit index СFI=0.918; root mean square error of approximation RMSEA=0.249 (result exceeding 0.1 indicates that there is no fit); AGFI=0,875 (when the fit is good, this result should exceed 0.9). А priori goodness-of-fit model does not completely correspond to source data, so adjusting the model is required. An obvious way to adjust the model is to delete statistically unreliable links from the model. Such links include a link of factor F3 to indicator I15.

A posteriori model of the confirmatory factor analysis has resulted from adjustment of the a priori goodness-of-fit (theoretical) model by recursion. Critical ratio for multidimensional excess c.r. = 1.912, which is significantly below 5; consequently, the assumption regarding multidimensional normality of variables has not been breached. The principal goodness-of-fit for this model: comparative fit index СFI=0.976; root mean square error of approximation RMSEA=0.050; AGFI=0.941. The goodness-of-fit values are within the allowable range. So, the model with crossing factors has been empirically confirmed.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, our study shows that MOLS is a tool for determining the personal significance of key factors for adults within The Meaning of Life Model in progress. The findings suggest that the potential The Meaning of Life Model should include at least 16 different factors, which would serve as a basis for the structure of the model. Our results definitely require further research to develop the practicality of the meaning of life phenomenon. The next step is to understand the significance of the identified three-factor structure and to interpret it while The Meaning of Life Model is in the developmental stage.