This article was downloaded by: [Rachel Hibberd]On: 01 June 2015, At: 12:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Death StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/udst20

Development and Validation of the Perceived LifeSignificance ScaleRachel Hibberda & Brian Vandenberga

a Psychology Department, University of Missouri–Saint Louis, Saint Louis, Missouri, USAAccepted author version posted online: 13 Feb 2015.Published online: 13 Feb 2015.

To cite this article: Rachel Hibberd & Brian Vandenberg (2015) Development and Validation of the Perceived Life SignificanceScale, Death Studies, 39:6, 369-383, DOI: 10.1080/07481187.2014.958627

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2014.958627

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Development and Validation of the PerceivedLife Significance Scale

Rachel Hibberd and Brian Vandenberg

Psychology Department, University of Missouri–Saint Louis, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA

A recent literature review of meaning and bereavement suggests a conceptual distinctionbetween sense-making, or the integration of a loss with beliefs and narratives, and lifesignificance, or perception of value associated with an aspect of one’s life experience.The present study aims to develop and validate a new measure: the Perceived LifeSignificance Scale (PLSS). Exploratory (n¼ 353) and confirmatory (n¼ 483) factor analysessupport three factors: active pursuit of goals and activities; emptiness=insignificance(reverse-scored); and receptivity to beauty in everyday life. The PLSS demonstratesconvergent and discriminant validity with respect to general measures of meaning, negativeaffect, depression, and sense-making.

Meaning comprises an important component of griefrecovery and features prominently in theories of copingwith stressful life events, yet has been notoriously difficultto define and operationalize (Park, 2010). A variety ofcognitive and social-constructionist theories of copinghave defined meaning in terms of the fit betweensituation-specific appraisals and global belief systems(e.g., Davis, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Larson, 1998; Gillies& Niemeyer, 2006; Janoff-Bulman, 1992; Park andFolkman, 1997). Within each of these models, meaningis primarily conceptualized in terms of mourners’ effortsto ‘‘make sense,’’ whether by seeking explanations forthe loss, appraising it as beneficial in unexpected ways,or changing one’s beliefs about self and world toaccommodate the fact of the loss. In contrast, a recentliterature review identified a distinct conceptualization ofmeaning as life significance: the perception of value asso-ciated with a goal, relationship, or aspect of life experiencethat exists or is pursued in the present and future (Hib-berd, 2013). As discussed in that review, several theoreti-cal models of bereavement, as well as extant qualitativeresearch, suggest that this aspect of meaning may be cru-cial to grief recovery, as individuals strive to identify what‘‘matters’’ in the wake of a shattering loss. However, a

psychometrically valid measure of life significance hasnot yet been developed. The aim of the present studywas to develop and validate such a measure: the PerceivedLife Significance Scale (PLSS).

In the present article, a relatively brief discussion ofthe hypothesized characteristics of life significance andits place in theoretical models of bereavement will beoffered; for a more detailed conceptual discussion, thereader is referred to Hibberd (2013). Constructs andmeasures related to life significance will be reviewed todemonstrate the need for a novel measure, given theplethora of meaning-related measures already inexistence. Finally, the specific goals of the present studywith respect to demonstrating discriminant validity(vis-a-vis meaning as sense-making, as well as non-meaning-related constructs such as depression, positiveand negative affect, and grief intensity) and convergentvalidity (vis-a-vis the higher-order construct of meaning)will be addressed.

LIFE SIGNIFICANCE IN GRIEF RECOVERY

Life significance has been described as the ‘‘sake’’ forwhich people persist in difficult tasks; as the motivationalelement of well-being; and as a sense of appreciation forthe beauty and value of everyday life (Antonovsky, 1987;Baumeister, 1991; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996). Qualitativeresearch has identified life significance in the responses of

Received 30 June 2013; accepted 3 August 2014.Address correspondence to Rachel Hibberd, Ph.D., Durham VA

Medical Center, Psychology Service, 508 Fulton Street, Durham

NC 27705. E-mail: rachel.hibberd2@va.gov

Death Studies, 39: 369–383, 2015

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0748-1187 print=1091-7683 online

DOI: 10.1080/07481187.2014.958627

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rac

hel H

ibbe

rd]

at 1

2:59

01

June

201

5

bereaved individuals who describe finding meaning inactivities, such as working to prevent gun violence(Armour, 2003); as well as those for whom meaningoccurs in daily experiences of beauty or interpersonalconnection (Wheeler, 2001). In contrast with meaningas sense-making, which involves mourners’ efforts todevelop coherent or positive narratives, beliefs, andappraisals, life significance is the sense of transcendentalor existential value attached to any aspect of one’s lifethat remains after a loss. It is the sense in which peopleare using meaning when they refer to something that‘‘means a lot’’ to them; it matters in a fundamental,inherent way, apart from its implications for thecoherence and logic of the world (Hibberd, 2013).

Qualitative accounts suggest that, like sense-making,life significance can be fundamentally altered in the wakeof loss (Armour, 2003; Wheeler, 2001). For example,bereavement may entail the loss of a cherished role(e.g., mother, husband), the performance of which wasfreighted with life significance (Hershberger & Walsh,1990). Alternatively, confrontation with death mayimpact a mourner’s perception of the value of life—either by threatening the value of one’s life andactivities, as suggested by Terror Management Theory(Solomon, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, 2004), or byincreasing the perceived value of everyday life (Wheeler,2001; Lykins et al., 2007). In contrast with the sense-making aspect of meaning, which research suggestsis an important predictive variable for some, but notall, bereaved individuals (Bonanno, Wortman, & Nesse,2004), it is difficult to imagine an individual navigatingbereavement successfully without preserving or recon-structing a life significance. Indeed, life significance isconceptualized here as an important outcome in itself,consistent with a eudaimonic definition of well-being(e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2001).

Life significance is implicit in several theories ofmeaning-making in bereavement, though meaning hasbeen more explicitly defined and operationalizedin terms of ‘‘sense-making’’ (Hibberd, 2013). Park andFolkman’s (1997) theory of stress and coping empha-sizes the role of sense-making in terms of reconcilingevent appraisals and global beliefs, briefly acknowledgingthe adjunctive role of ‘‘goals and values’’ as a componentof meaning. Social constructivist models of griefdescribe postbereavement narratives as contextualprocesses that include tacit, preverbal structures as wellas the specific content of conscious cognition (Neimeyer,2000). Although life significance is implicit in suchdescriptions (presumably interwoven throughout the‘‘deep structures’’ of preverbal meaning), coherenceand integration, rather than felt significance, remainthe primary outcome of interest (Gillies & Neimeyer,2006; Holland, Currier, Coleman, & Neimeyer, 2010).It is certainly possible, even likely, that coherent,

well-integrated narratives of loss, self, and worldfacilitates the experience of life significance for bereavedindividuals. However, a valid measure of life significanceitself is needed to empirically explore the relationshipsbetween narratives or beliefs (i.e., sense-making pro-cesses and outcomes) and the sense of existential valuethey impart for the individuals who hold them.

Life significance is, very specifically, conceptualizedas a dimension of meaning—an experience that occursat an existential level of analysis (i.e., as compared withphenomena that can be clearly described solely in termsof discrete combinations of cognitions, behaviors, oremotions; Schneider, 2008). Life significance, in parti-cular, seems to defy such categorizations; it could bedescribed in affective terms (e.g., the feelings associatedwith transcendent or valued experiences), as a cognition(e.g., the belief that an event is valuable), or as an actiontendency (e.g., to continue to pursue the activity orexperience despite challenges); however, none of thesefully capture the ‘‘larger than oneself’’ transcendentquality of meaning. Indeed, this transcendent quality iswhat defines meaning as separate from other aspectsof psychological well-being. Thus, a valid measure oflife significance should be demonstrably discrepantfrom nonexistential measures of well-being, such aspositive=negative affect, depression, or grief intensity,and demonstrably convergent with measures of speci-fically existential phenomena (i.e., other measuresof meaning).

HYPOTHESIZED SUBDIMENSIONSOF LIFE SIGNIFICANCE

Two subdimensions of life significance are hypo-thesized, based on a review of qualitative accountsof meaning-making (see Hibberd, 2013). Specifically,active life significance is derived from intentional pur-suit of and engagement with valued activities andgoals; this is life significance as the ‘‘performativedimension’’ of meaning (Armour, 2003). Individualsfind active life significance in the things they do.In contrast, receptive life significance involves a morepassive appreciation of beautiful or special life experi-ences, as described by individuals who report a greaterawareness of the value of everyday life after becomingaware of life’s finitude (Wheeler, 2001). Individualsfind receptive life significance in the things theyexperience. For example, an individual bereaved bysuicide may find active life significance in an activitysuch as political advocacy for better access to mentalhealth resources, and receptive life significance inwaking up early to savor drinking coffee and watchingthe sunrise.

370 R. HIBBERD AND B. VANDENBERG

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rac

hel H

ibbe

rd]

at 1

2:59

01

June

201

5

CONSTRUCTS SIMILAR TO ‘‘RECEPTIVE’’LIFE SIGNIFICANCE

Constructs and measures related to life significanceexist, although no currently existing measure is bothconceptually and psychometrically adequate as a proxyfor life significance. One construct that has been closelylinked with research surrounding meaning-making isposttraumatic growth, which includes a wide range ofpositive changes resulting from stressful life events(Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996). In some cases, this mayinclude an enhanced awareness of the value of everydaylife, a change reflected in the ‘‘Appreciation of Life’’subscale of the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory(Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996). Unfortunately, thesubscale contains only three items, and as a resultdemonstrates unacceptably low internal consistencyreliability. In addition, each of the items is wordedin terms of an increase in life appreciation since theevent (e.g., ‘‘I can better appreciate each day’’), whichlimits the ability of these items to measure appreci-ation of life as a dynamic variable, as well aslongitudinal changes in appreciation over time.

Gratitude also relates to the appreciation of signifi-cant moments in one’s present-day experience, parti-cularly when it is conceptualized as ‘‘generalizedgratitude’’ rather than gratitude toward a specific person(Bono, Emmons, & McCullough, 2004). Nevertheless,gratitude and life significance do not entirely overlap,conceptually speaking. Life significance refers to experi-ences that are felt to be inherently or transcendentallymeaningful (Hibberd, 2013). That is, one may be grate-ful for the relief provided by sinking into the couch andwatching television; however, most individuals wouldnot describe this experience as one which ‘‘matters’’ tothem in the overall scope of their lives (Baumeister,1991). Neither appreciation of life nor gratitude isconceptually similar enough to life significance to serveas useful measurement proxies.

CONSTRUCTS SIMILAR TO ‘‘ACTIVE’’LIFE SIGNIFICANCE

Hardiness, a multidimensional construct developedto explain resilience following stressful life events,includes as one of its three subdimensions ‘‘commit-ment,’’ or the tendency to remain motivated andinvolved in relationships and activities rather thanbecoming alienated (Maddi, 1997). Commitmentdemonstrates partial conceptual overlap with lifesignificance; to the extent that individuals are activelyengaged in life activities and future goals, they experi-ence progress toward valued outcomes as existentiallysignificant (Hibberd, 2013).

Unfortunately, current measures of hardiness areplagued by measurement problems, including poorcriterion validity (Sinclair & Tetrick, 2000), uncertaindiscriminant validity (Funk, 1992) and unstable factorstructure (Hull, Van Trueren, & Virnelli, 1987). Ratherthan accumulating an evidence base for one well-validated measure of hardiness, researchers have tendedto develop successive versions, the specific content andscoring criteria of which are not publicly available(Maddi, 1987; Maddi, 1997). Further, a number offactor-analyses of hardiness measures point to solutionsthat do not conform to the three-factor model ofhardiness (Funk, 1992; Hull, Van Treuren, & Virnelli,1987; Sinclair & Tetrick, 2000), rendering specificmeasurement of the commitment subdimension difficult.Thus, while the concepts of commitment and hardinessare relevant to life significance, existing measures arenot psychometrically adequate as a measure of lifesignificance.

Sense of coherence is conceptually similar to hardi-ness, with three subdimensions: coherence, controllabil-ity, and meaningfulness (Antonovsky, 1987). Coherenceand controllability both approximate sense-making, inthe context of the present review. The meaningfulnesssubdimension, in contrast, is conceptually similar toactive life significance. This latter subscale measuresthe extent to which the demands posed by daily livingare viewed as ‘‘challenges, worthy of investment andengagement’’ (Antonovsky, 1987, p. 19). The mostcommonly used measure of sense of coherence, theLife Orientation Questionnaire (typically abbreviatedSOC-29) has demonstrated internal consistencyreliability, as well as convergent, predictive, and discri-minatory validity as a unidimensional measure (seeEriksson & Lindstrom, 2005, for a review). However,individual subscales of the measure are not psychometri-cally valid for independent use. A number of factoranalyses have supported a unidimensional model ofsense of coherence (Antonovsky, 1993; Frenz, Carey,& Jorgensen, 1993), and other studies have supportedvarious multidimensional structures that do not corre-spond to Antonovsky’s subscales (Fiorentino, 1989;Sandell, Blomberg, & Lazar, 1998). Thus, as with hardi-ness, the sense of coherence construct is conceptuallyinformative but does not yield an appropriate measureof life significance.

Another related construct, purpose in life, containsaspects of both active life significance and meaning assense-making. Purpose in life was described by Frankl(1955), a concentration camp survivor, as a central rea-son for living despite the suffering and cruelty inherentin life; in more recent terms, purpose has been describedas a ‘‘central, self-organizing life aim’’ (Kashdan &McKnight, 2009, p. 304). For example, a person mightidentify completion of a lifelong project, parenting of

PERCEIVED LIFE SIGNIFICANCE SCALE 371

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rac

hel H

ibbe

rd]

at 1

2:59

01

June

201

5

children, or communicating an idea as constitutive ofpurpose in life. By definition, these priorities are imbuedwith life significance, at least in the abstract; however,one’s ability to identify salient goals and purposes isnot the same as the feeling of significance derived fromtheir pursuit. Thus, purpose in life could be said to rep-resent a framework within which significance is pursued,or a narrative from which significance is derived.However, one might imagine individuals experience lifesignificance, even the hypothesized active life signifi-cance, from activities and experiences that are notconnected with an explicitly defined purpose in life.For example, some individuals may derive life signifi-cance from activities that are performed every day, withno expectation of linear progress (e.g., cleaning dutiesperformed by Zen monks), or from an impulsive actthat occurs independent of larger organizing goals(e.g., stopping to help a stranded motorist). Similarly,one could imagine an individual who is acutely awareof his or her perceived life purpose, but experiences nolife significance associated with it due to intense anxiety,behavioral paralysis, or a perception of having failed inits pursuit. In short, the cognitive context of purpose inlife (i.e., its function in meaning as sense-making) ishypothesized to be separable from the life significanceassociated with it, but this distinction remains untested.A central reason for developing the PLSS is to examinejust this type of question.

GOALS OF THE PRESENT STUDY

The primary goal of the present study is to assess thereliability and convergent, discriminant, and criterionvalidity of a new measure of life significance, the PLSS.As with any measure, the PLSS should demonstratestronger associations with constructs that are concep-tually similar than with constructs that are conceptuallydistinct (DeVellis, 2011). In particular, it will be impor-tant to demonstrate that variance in PLSS scores is notreducible simply to differences in affective well-being.Other measures of meaning have been criticized on thisground, with some authors contending that they actmerely as a proxy for negative emotionality (Dyck,1987). More broadly, the onus has been placed on propo-nents of a eudaimonic model of well-being (i.e., one thatincludes meaning as central to its definition of the goodlife; Ryan & Deci, 2001) to demonstrate that meaningholds specific predictive validity and cannot be reducedto the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain (Ryff& Singer, 1998; King, Hicks, Krull, & Del Gaiso, 2006;King & Napa, 1998). In the present study, the PLSSis expected to demonstrate stronger associations withgeneral measures of meaning than with measures ofpositive and negative affect, depression, and grief intensity.

If the PLSS demonstrates that it is more closely relatedto meaning than to unrelated constructs such as positiveaffect and depression, its status as a measure of ameaning-related construct will be supported. However,to provide additional evidence that the PLSS measureslife significance specifically, it will also need to demon-strate discriminant validity with respect to sense-making.As discussed, life significance is conceptually distinct fromother major conceptualizations of meaning, all of whichcenter around individuals’ ability to construct coherent,positive narratives of their lives and=or loss event, or‘‘make sense’’ (Davis et Al., 1998; Frankl, 1955; Janoff-Bulman, 1992; Neimeyer, 2001). However, simply exam-ining the strength of the association between the PLSSand measures of sense-making may not be the best testof discriminant validity. As in the example of purpose inlife, sense and significance are likely to be related to oneanother in complex, reciprocally causative ways, possiblyresulting in a high correlation despite conceptual distinc-tions (Hibberd, 2013). In the present study, joint con-firmatory factor analysis of PLSS and sense-makingitems was used to examine the factor structure underlyingthese items, with the expectation that a two-factormodel will demonstrate better fit (thus supporting thediscriminant validity of the PLSS from sense-making).

Finally, the criterion validity of the PLSS wasexamined with respect to participation in social roles,which are likely to represent important sources of lifesignificance (Baumeister, 2001). When few significantroles remain after a significant other dies, mournersreport more intense grief and less purpose in life(Hershberger & Walsh, 1990). In the present study, itis expected that participants with fewer role involve-ments will score lower on the PLSS than participantswith a greater number of role involvements.

METHOD

PLSS Item Development

Preliminary items for the measure were generated in twoways. First, an initial pool of items were constructedbased on the theoretical considerations outlined byHibberd (2013), as well as additional theoretical andempirical perspectives that include Self DeterminationTheory (Deci & Ryan, 1985); materialism and life goals(Kasser, 2002); and flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) aswell as qualitative work describing mourners’ experi-ences of finding significance (Armour, 2003; Wheeler,2001). Second, additional items were generated basedon qualitative data gleaned from four focus groups ofbereaved adults (n¼ 31). This procedure was selectedto help ensure that item wording resonated with thelived experience of everyday people, as well as to ensurea sufficient breadth of item content (Neimeyer, Hogan,

372 R. HIBBERD AND B. VANDENBERG

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rac

hel H

ibbe

rd]

at 1

2:59

01

June

201

5

& Laurie, 2008). Given the inherent difficulty of quanti-fying an abstract phenomenon such as life significance(Schneider, 2008), the use of a mixed-methods design(e.g., qualitative data derived from focus groups for itemdevelopment, followed by quantitative analysis of scalepsychometrics) was judged epistemologically preferableto a purely quantitative design.

In the present study, two focus groups were comprisedof primarily older adults with mixed types of loss; onegroup was comprised of survivors of suicide; and onegroup was comprised of bereaved parents. In each group,participants were asked a series of questions about theirbereavement experiences, the role of meaning in theirrecovery, and the types of experiences, activities, relation-ships, goals, beliefs, and values perceived as ‘‘meaningful’’in their lives. Given the limited scope and goals of thisqualitative analysis, neither a formal coding strategy,nor multiple independent coders were used. Rather, infor-mal deductive thematic analysis was used by the principalinvestigator to identify patterns in participant responsesthat were relevant to hypothesized subdimensions (activeand receptive life significance, respectively), and specificwording used by participants was then incorporated intoputative PLSS items (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

Participants and Procedures

Participants for quantitative validation of the PLSSwere recruited from two sources: advertisements postedto community support websites for bereaved individuals(n¼ 353), and the undergraduate research participantpool at a public, Midwest university (n¼ 483). Parti-cipants were eligible for the study if they were 18 yearsor older and had experienced the death of loved onewithin the past 10 years.

Three hundred and twenty-two participants (91%) inthe community sample identified as Caucasian, six (2%)identified as African American, eight (3%) identifiedas Latino=a, eight (2%) identified as Asian, and 12 (4%)identified as another ethnicity. The community samplewas composed of 330 (96%) women, with a mean age of45 (SD¼ 12.3). One hundred and eighty-four participants(52%) were married or partnered, 74 (21%) were widowed,37 (11%) were divorced or separated, and 57 (16%) weresingle. In terms of religious affiliation, 165 (47%) identifiedas Protestant or nondenominational Christian, 90 (26%)as Catholic, 73 (22%) as atheist or agnostic, and 20 (9%)identified with another religious affiliation.

In the student sample, 366 (66%) identified as Cauca-sian, 134 (28%) identified as African American, 14 (3%)identified as Latino=a, 17 (3%) identified as Asian, and11 (3%) as another ethnicity. The student sample wascomposed of 359 (75%) women, with a mean age of 23(SD¼ 7.6). Ninety-three participants (14%) were mar-ried or partnered, 17 (4%) were divorced (4%), 365

(76%) were single, and none were widowed. In termsof religious affiliation, 241 (50%) identified as Protestantor nondenominational Christian, 110 (23%) as Catholic,71 (15%) as atheist or agnostic, and 34 (7%) identifiedwith another religious affiliation. Loss characteristicsof each sample, including cause of death, relationshipto deceased, age of deceased, number of prior losses,closeness to deceased, and time since loss, as well asage and religiousness of respondent, are given in Table 1.

Following the informed consent, all participants com-pleted the measures described below, including the initial48-item pool for the PLSS (statistics reported for the19-item final scale are derived from this larger item pool).Participants were instructed to answer study questionswith the most distressing loss of the past 10 years inmind. Student participants were offered extra credit,whereas participants in the community sample wereoffered the option to participate in a gift certificate raffle.

Measures

Demographic Questionnaire

Each participant completed a questionnaire concerningage, gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation, time since theloss, cause of death, participant’s relationship to thedeceased, and several role involvements (parent to adultchildren; parent to minor children; married=partnered; fullor part-time employee, volunteer, caregiver, or student).

PLSS

All participants were administered an initial pool of48 potential PLSS items, 19 of which were retained forthe final PLSS scale (see the appendix for retaineditems; see PLSS Item Selection section for details as tothe criteria for item retention; see Results section forpsychometric properties of the final scale).

Life Orientation Questionnaire

The higher-order construct of meaning was measuredusing the 29-item version of the Life Orientation Ques-tionnaire (SOC-29) a measure of sense of coherence(described above). The SOC-29 has demonstrated goodcriterion, predictive, concurrent and discriminant validity,and internal consistency has ranged from .70 to .95 acrossa number of studies (Eriksson & Lindstrom, 2007).

Meaning in Life Questionnaire

Meaning as a higher-order construct was alsomeasured using the Presence subscale of the Meaningin Life Questionnaire (MLQ-P), which the authorsdescribe as ‘‘a measure of the sense made of, andsignificance felt regarding, the nature of one’s being

PERCEIVED LIFE SIGNIFICANCE SCALE 373

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rac

hel H

ibbe

rd]

at 1

2:59

01

June

201

5

and existence’’ (Steger et al., 2006, p. 81). The MLQhas demonstrated convergent and discriminant validity(Steger et al., 2006). Despite containing only five items,the Presence subscale has demonstrated acceptablereliability (a¼ .86).

Positive and Negative Affect Schedule

Positive and negative affect were measured using thePositive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), whichconsists of two 10-item subscales designed to measurepositive and negative affective states (Watson et al.,1988). Participants were instructed to complete PANASitems with respect to how they feel ‘‘generally, on aver-age.’’ The PANAS demonstrates good internal consist-ency reliability (a¼ 0.81 for positive affect and a¼ .88for negative affect; Watson et al., 1988).

Center for Epidemiological Studies DepressionScale

Symptoms of depression were assessed using the10-item version of the Center for Epidemiological

Studies Depression Scale (CESD-10; Kohout et al.,1993). The original 20-item CESD is one of the mostwidely used measures of depressive symptomatologyand has well-established validity and reliability. TheCESD-10 has demonstrated reliability and validity com-parable to its longer counterpart, with a¼ .92 (Kohoutet al., 1993).

Texas Revised Inventory of Grief

Grief intensity was measured using the 13-itemPresent Feelings subscale of the Texas Revised Inven-tory of Grief (TRIG), one of the most commonly usedmeasures of grief. The Present Feelings subscale hasdemonstrated acceptable internal consistency reliability(a¼ .89; Faschingbauer, 1981).

World Assumptions Scale

Sense-making was assessed using the World Assump-tions Scale (WAS), the most commonly used measure ofglobal beliefs affected by stressful life events. The WASis organized into eight subscales, assessing three primary

TABLE 1

Characteristics of Community and Student Samples

Community sample Student sample

Characteristic n % M SD n % M SD

Relationship to deceased

Aunt or uncle 5 1 70 15

Child, stepchild, or foster child 115 33 1 <1

Close friend 12 3 78 16

Grandparent 11 3 214 44

Parent or caregiver 85 24 48 10

Sibling 26 7 12 3

Spouse or partner 76 22 0 0

Other relationship 22 6 60 12

Cause of death

Suicide 31 9 29 6

Homicide (incl. combat) 14 4 29 6

Accident 82 24 56 12

Prolonged illnessa 136 40 250 52

Sudden illness 78 23 97 20

Age of deceased

Prenatal to 10 years 27 8 5 1

10–20 years 43 12 53 11

20–40 years 96 28 74 15

40–60 years 136 38 185 39

60–80þ years 50 14 164 34

Number of losses in past 10 years 2.61 1.72 2.66 1.70

Religiousnessb 4.33 1.80 4.04 1.87

Age (years) 45.00 12.30 25.30 7.63

Closeness to deceasedb 6.70 0.83 5.69 1.32

Distress at time of lossb 6.81 0.68 6.18 1.23

Time since loss (months) 38.57 34.00 46.62 36.72

PLSS total score 87.33 22.22 109.26 16.88

aProlonged illness was defined as following an illness which began over two weeks before the death.bAssessed using a 7-point Likert scale.

374 R. HIBBERD AND B. VANDENBERG

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rac

hel H

ibbe

rd]

at 1

2:59

01

June

201

5

schemas theorized by Janoff-Bulman (1992) to play animportant mediating role in the impact of stressfulevents: benevolence, world meaning, and self-worth.The items are rated on a 6-point scale with endpointsof 1 (strongly disagree) and 6 (strongly agree). TheWAS has demonstrated acceptable internal consistencyreliability, with alpha coefficients for the eight subscalesranging from .68 to .86 (Janoff-Bulman, 1989). Theconstruct validity of the WAS has been supported bya number of studies (Schwartzberg & Janoff-Bulman,1991; Elklit, Shevlin, Solomon, & Dekel, 2007; Matthews& Marwit, 2004).

Fulfillment

Participants were asked, ‘‘Please rate how fulfilled orsatisfied you feel by each of the following areas of yourlife, using the following scale’’ and provided withendpoints ranging from 1 (not at all fulfilled) to 7(completely fulfilled). Total fulfillment was then summedacross the eight areas assessed (work, relationships,hobbies, community, noticing beauty, helping, livingaccording to values, religious=spiritual).

Integration of Stressful Life Experiences Scale

The Integration of Stressful Life Experiences Scale,a measure of the integration and coherence of narrativesfollowing a stressful event (Holland et al., 2010), wasadministered to all participants. However, it was notused in any of the analyses presented here.

RESULTS

Quantitative analyses were conducted using the Statisti-cal Packages for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version19.0. The Mardia test of multivariate abnormality indi-cated significant multivariate kurtosis for the PLSSitems in the student sample (Mardia¼ 470.19, criterionof 101.52); thus, exploratory and confirmatory factoranalyses used methods of estimation that are robust toviolations of normality.

Sample Strategy

The use of two independent samples (communitybereaved adults and bereaved students) allowed for amore valid hypothesis testing process and stronger confir-mation of the factor structure and validity of the PLSS(DeVellis, 2011). The community sample was used forinitial analyses to inform PLSS item selection decisions,including exploratory factor analysis and individual itemstatistics. The student sample, collected 6 months later,was used for confirmatory analyses of the 19-item PLSS

scale (constructed of items selected from the initial 48-itempool, which was administered to the students in itsentirety), as well as discriminant validity of the PLSS withrespect to a measure of sense-making. Correlationsbetween the PLSS and other measures (to further assessconvergent and discriminant validity), as well as interitemreliability, were found to be highly similar across thetwo samples; thus, these statistics are reported for thecombined student and community samples (n¼ 836).

Missing Data Strategy

Participants in both the community sample (n¼ 67) andstudent sample (n¼ 43) who did not complete at leastthe demographics questionnaire and the majority of PLSSitems (i.e., those who exited the survey soon after begin-ning it) were removed from the study. In both samples,a conservative missing data strategy was used in that totalscores were calculated only for participants who com-pleted at least 95% of that measure. For the exploratoryfactor analysis (community sample), a pairwise missingdata strategy was adopted and the factor solution forthe final item pool was cross-checked against a solutiongenerated using listwise deletion of missing cases. Forthe confirmatory analyses (student sample), Little’sMissing Completely at Random (MCAR) test indicatedpatterns in the missing data, contraindicating listwisedeletion; thus, missing PLSS and WAS values wereestimated using the Expectation-Maximization algorithm.

PLSS Item Selection

Item selection decisions and exploratory analyses wereperformed using the community sample. Of the initial48-item pool of potential PLSS items, 18 were discardedbased on item skew and kurtosis and redundancy ofitem content. Principal axis factoring with oblique(promax) rotation was used to determine the factorstructure underlying the remaining pool of 30 items.Three factors were retained based on the scree plotand eigenvalues. Items with loading greater than .5 onany factor while not loading greater than .3 wereretained through several additional item pools, resultingin 19 final PLSS items.

A final exploratory analysis was performed to evalu-ate the factor structure and loadings of the final PLSSitems, using the same extraction method, rotation, andmissing data strategy described above. All validity tests(determinant, Bartlett’s sphericity, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkintest) were acceptable (Pett, Lackey, & Sullivan, 2003).The rotated solution of this final factor analysisdemonstrated the same three factors as the initialsolution. The first factor includes items correspondingwith the hypothesized subdimension of active lifesignificance, as described above; the second factor

PERCEIVED LIFE SIGNIFICANCE SCALE 375

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rac

hel H

ibbe

rd]

at 1

2:59

01

June

201

5

contained all reverse-scored items representing theperceived absence of significance; the third factorcorresponds with the hypothesized subdimension ofreceptive life significance. All items demonstratedacceptable rotated factor loadings (see Table 2). Thesethree factors were named Active, Negative, andReceptive Life Significance.

Internal Consistency

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated using acombined sample of community and student parti-cipants (n¼ 836). The total PLSS score demonstratedexcellent reliability (a¼ .95). Of the three PLSS subscalescores (corresponding to the three factors describedabove), Active Significance (a¼ .95) and NegativeSignificance (a¼ .93) both demonstrated excellent relia-bility, while Receptive Significance (a¼ .70) demon-strated adequate reliability (Nunnally, 1978).

Stability of PLSS Factor Structure

The three-factor structure described above was sub-jected to a confirmatory analysis using the student sam-ple (Figure 1). Brown’s (2006) asymptotically freedistribution estimation method was used due to itsrobustness to multivariate abnormality. Fit measuresrobust to multivariate abnormality, large sample sizes,and varying methods of estimation were examined,including a measure of absolute fit (standardized rootmean square residual; SRMR) and a parsimony-corrected fit index (root mean square error of approxi-mation; RMSEA), as recommended by Brown (2006).Comparative fit indices were not evaluated because ofa low RMSEA for the null model (Kenny & McCoach,2003).

Chi-square was statistically significant, v2¼ 323.58,df¼ 149, p< .001; however, chi-square is sensitive tosample size, with a tendency to reach statistical signifi-cance (and thus indicate poor model fit) in sample sizesgreater than 400 (Brown, 2006). The SRMR demon-strated good fit. This measure ranges from 0 to 1, withvalues of less than .08 indicating good fit; the SRMRin the present analysis was .06 (Guo et al., 1998). TheRMSEA offers a slight advantage for more parsimoni-ous models, rendering it a relatively conservative mea-sure of fit for this three-factor model. Browne andCudeck (1993) suggest a criterion of RMSEA �.05 asan indicator of good fit. In the present sample, goodfit was demonstrated by an RMSEA of .05, withPCLOSE ¼.55. Overall, the factor stability of the PLSSwas supported across samples.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

The PLSS was expected to show stronger (in terms ofabsolute value) associations with general measures ofmeaning than with measures of constructs unrelated tomeaning, including depression, grief intensity, negativeaffect, and positive affect. These associations wereexamined via a series of Pearson correlations in the com-bined pool of student and community samples (n¼ 836).Correlations and two-tailed significance tests are given

TABLE 2

Factor Loadings and Factor Correlations of Promax Rotation,

Final PLSS Items

Factor loadings

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

16. I am energized by the things

I want to do in my life.

0.88 0.01 0.02

5. I feel alive and full of vitality. 0.87 0.02 �0.05

17. I am deeply engaged in my

life.

0.84 �0.05 0.09

6. I’m involved in activities that

feel rewarding.

0.81 0.04 �0.04

1. I feel satisfied and fulfilled by

the things I do.

0.78 0.14 �0.08

3. I try to live my life to the

fullest.

0.78 0.00 0.09

8. I really care about the things

I am doing with my life.

0.72 0.12 0.06

19. I am an active participant in

my own life.

0.69 0.09 0.13

11. My life is empty.� �0.02 0.92 �0.06

10. I feel I have nothing to live

for.��0.12 0.86 0.17

18. I feel disconnected from the

world.�0.26 0.76 �0.20

2. There’s nothing in my life

that really matters.�0.02 0.70 0.01

7. My life feels like a waste of

time.�0.07 0.68 0.17

14. My life feels pointless at

times.�0.18 0.68 �0.07

13. Life is too short to waste time

on petty things.

�0.05 �0.09 0.72

12. The pain and suffering I’ve

experienced connects me to

other people who have also

suffered.

0.02 �0.04 0.63

4. There are moments when I’m

powerfully aware of how

valuable life is.

0.12 0.16 0.50

9. Sometimes something so

special or meaningful

happens that I get choked up.

0.08 0.03 0.50

15. If you look closely, the world

is a beautiful place.

0.21 0.16 0.42

Factor correlations

Factor 1 —

Factor 2 0.76 —

Factor 3 0.70 0.65 —

aItems marked with an asterisk are reverse-scored.bLoadings in bold correspond with each item’s hypothesized

subdimension.

376 R. HIBBERD AND B. VANDENBERG

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rac

hel H

ibbe

rd]

at 1

2:59

01

June

201

5

in Table 3. The PLSS performed well in terms of conver-gent validity, evidencing strong associations with theSOC-29 (r¼ .78) and the MLQ-P (r¼ .79). In supportof its discriminant validity, the PLSS demonstratedlower associations with the CESD-10 (r¼�.63), TRIG(r¼ .43), and Negative Affect subscale of the PANAS(r¼�.61). However, the PLSS was strongly associatedwith the Positive Affect subscale of the PANAS(r¼ .82). Overall, these results support the discriminantand convergent validity of the PLSS, with the exceptionof an unexpectedly high association with positive affect.

PLSS Criterion Validity

The PLSS was expected to show additional criterion val-idity in its relationship with number of role involvementsand self-rated fulfillment across a number of different lifedomains. Role involvements were coded by summing the

total number of different role involvements (describedabove in the Demographic Questionnaire section). Con-sistent with expectations, Pearson bivariate correlationsdemonstrate significant associations between numberof role involvements and PLSS total, r¼ .17, p¼ .001;PLSS Active subscale, r¼ .13, p¼ .012; PLSS Negativesubscale, r¼ .19, p< .001; and PLSS Receptive subscale,r¼ 13, p¼ .012. Pearson correlations between PLSSscales and the total measure of fulfillment were moderateto large: fulfillment and PLSS total, r¼ .64; PLSS Active,r¼ .69; PLSS Negative, r¼ .50; and PLSS receptive,r¼ .44. Criterion validity of the PLSS with respect to roleinvolvements and fulfillment is supported.

Differentiating Significance from Sense-Making

Joint confirmatory factor analysis was used assessthe discriminant validity of the PLSS with respect to

FIGURE 1 Standardized parameter estimates for confirmatory factor analysis of Perceived Life Significance Scale items. Latent constructs and

error terms are shown in ellipses, and observed variables (PLSS items) are shown in rectangles. Factor coefficients and loadings of error terms were

set to one, and factor loadings, factor covariances, and error variances were left unconstrained.

PERCEIVED LIFE SIGNIFICANCE SCALE 377

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rac

hel H

ibbe

rd]

at 1

2:59

01

June

201

5

sense-making, measured by the WAS. Multiplemeasures of fit were examined for two competingmodels: a one-factor model in which all PLSS andWAS items load onto a single latent factor, anda two-factor model in which PLSS and WAS items loadseparately onto two correlated latent factors. Factor coef-ficients and loadings of error terms were set to one, andfactor loadings, factor covariances, and error varianceswere left unconstrained. Maximum likelihood estimationwith bootstrapping was used.

For the single-factor model, in which PLSS items andWAS items load onto a single latent factor, theBollen-Stine bootstrap measure was statistically signifi-cant, p< .001. However, like the chi-square measure,the Bollen-Stine bootstrap measure is sensitive to samplesize, tending to reach statistical significance in samplesizes greater than 400 (Bollen & Stine, 1992). TheSRMR, which is robust to both sample size and viola-tions of multivariate normality, also demonstrated poorfit (SRMR ¼ .25). The RMSEA was .10, with PCLOSE<.001 indicating that this measure is significantly largerthan the suggested cutoff of .05 (Brown, 2006). Both ofthese measures indicate that the one-factor model, inwhich PLSS and WAS items are both reflective of a sin-gle latent variable, is not a good fit for the data.

For the two-factor model, in which PLSS items andWAS items load onto two separate but related latentvariables, the Bollen-Stine bootstrap measure was stat-istically significant (p< .001). The SRMR was .19 andthe RMSEA was .09, indicating poor, though slightlyimproved, fit. The Bayesian information criterion(BOC) was used to examine whether the difference inmodel fit was significant between the two models. Thiscriterion exacts a penalty for models with a greater

number of parameters, making it a relatively conserva-tive test for the superiority of the two-factor model(Raftery, 1995). Even accounting for the large samplesize, comparison of the BIC for the single-factor model(BIC¼ 7,228), and the BIC for the two-factor model(BIC¼ 6,475) indicated good evidence for superior fitof the two-factor model. These results support the dis-criminant validity of the PLSS with respect to the WAS.

DISCUSSION

A review of the literature surrounding meaning inbereavement suggests that individuals experience mean-ing not only in terms of coherent, stable, and positiveworldviews (meaning as ‘‘sense-making’’), but also interms of life significance——the perception of valueassociated with a goal, relationship, or aspect of lifeexperience that exists or is pursued in the present andfuture (Hibberd, 2013). The present study examinesthe reliability and the construct, convergent, divergent,and criterion validity of a new measure of life signifi-cance, the PLSS.

Factor Structure

Based on a previous literature review of constructsrelated to life significance (Hibberd, 2013), two possiblesubdimensions of life significance were expected.Exploratory factor analysis supported the presence ofboth of these sub-dimensions, with item clusters repre-senting (a) intentional, purposive pursuit of and engage-ment with valued activities and goals (termed active lifesignificance), and b) passive appreciation of beautiful or

TABLE 3

Intercorrelations of Study Measures in Combined Community and Student Sample

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1. PLSS .95

2. PLSS-Active .96 .95

3. PLSS-Negative .90 .81 .93

4. PLSS-Receptive .70 .59 .50 .70

5. MLQ-P .79 .78 .72 .52 .92

6. SOC-29 .78 .77 .74 .47 .73 .92

7. TRIG .43 .46 .41 .12 .37 .46 .91

8. PANAS-Positive .82 .85 .71 .46 .71 .70 .46 .93

9. PANAS-Negative �.61 �.59 �.57 �.39 �.52 �.72 �.42 �.51 .88

10. CESD-10 �.63 �.64 �.63 �.35 �.57 �.73 �.45 �.61 .65 .78

11. WAS .68 .69 .58 .49 .63 .68 .36 .60 �.51 �.52 .86

12. WAS-Benevolence .47 .46 .38 .48 .41 .51 .14 .36 �.39 �.39 .70 .88

13. WAS-Self .70 .70 .60 .50 .61 .65 .32 .62 �.53 �.50 .84 .48 .85

14. WAS-Meaning .27 .30 .22 .08 .31 .27 .31 .29 �.16 �.24 .63 .10 .24 .73

Note: All correlations reported are statistically significant at p< .05. Interitem reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s a) in combined student and

community sample are given along the diagonal. PLSS¼Perceived Life Significance Scale; MLQ-P¼Presence subscale of the Meaning in Life Ques-

tionnaire; SOC-29¼Life Orientation Questionnaire; TRIG¼Texas Revised Inventory of Grief; PANAS¼Positive and Negative Affect Schedule;

CESD-10¼Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale; WAS¼World Assumptions Scale.

378 R. HIBBERD AND B. VANDENBERG

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rac

hel H

ibbe

rd]

at 1

2:59

01

June

201

5

otherwise valuable life experiences (receptive life signifi-cance). However, a third, unexpected factor alsoemerged in the exploratory analyses (and was supportedin confirmatory analyses): reverse-scored items suggest-ing an empty, meaningless, or insignificant appraisal oflife activities.

There are at least two possible explanations for thepresence of this ‘‘negative’’ life significance factor. First,the presence of all reverse items on this subscale raisesthe possibility that the factor simply reflects sharedmethod variance across reverse-scored items. Alterna-tively, or more likely in addition to the shared methodvariance, ‘‘negative’’ life significance may constitute aphenomenologically distinct experience. Several of theitems are worded to reflect not merely an absence of lifesignificance, but the presence of a sense of emptiness orfutility (e.g., ‘‘My life feels pointless at times’’). Futurestudy may determine whether the PLSS subscales offerunique predictive validity.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Correlations between the PLSS and other studymeasures demonstrated good convergent, discriminant,and criterion validity overall. As hypothesized, the PLSSevidenced stronger (positive) associations with generalmeasures of meaning than (negative) associations withmeasures of depression, grief intensity, and negativeaffect. These findings are important because they sup-port the validity of the PLSS as a measure of meaningspecifically, rather than merely a proxy for adjustment.In addition, the PLSS demonstrated expected positiveassociations with number of role involvements andself-reported fulfillment.

Contrary to expectations, the PLSS demonstrated avery strong positive correlation (r¼ .82 in the combinedsample) with positive affect as measured by the PANAS.Because of the conceptualization of life significance as aspecifically existential construct, it was hypothesizedthat the PLSS would demonstrate stronger associationswith measures of meaning than with positive affect.However, it is important to note that positive affect asmeasured by the PANAS is not synonymous with purelyhedonic pleasure. Several of the specific emotion wordscomprising the Positive Affect Subscale of the PANAS(e.g., inspired, enthusiastic, proud) correspond to thetheorized subdimension of Active Life Significance(Watson et al., 1988); and indeed, the Active LifeSignificance subscale of the PLSS showed the highestassociation with positive affect (r¼ .85) of the threesubscales. Future studies may further tease out therelationship between life significance and hedonic vs.eudaimonic aspects of positive affect (e.g., Peterson,Park, & Seligman, 2005). For example, the PLSS couldbe administered to a population which may be expected

to demonstrate high positive affect but low perceivedlife significance—e.g., individuals who have recentlyattained success as measured by extrinsic, rather thanintrinsic, life goals (Kasser, 2002).

Establishing the discriminant validity of the PLSSwith respect to measures of meaning as sense-makingwas another important goal of this study. Life signifi-cance and sense-making are hypothesized to be concep-tually separable, yet causally intertwined (Hibberd,2013). Thus, it was important to test the discriminantvalidity of the PLSS from measures of sense-making ina more nuanced way, rather than by simply examiningcorrelations. The WAS represents the most widely-usedmeasure of sense-making; it assesses specific beliefsabout the world, the self, and the controllability, justice,and randomness of negative events (Janoff-Bulman,1989; Matthews & Marwit, 2004; Schwartzberg &Janoff-Bulman, 1991).

As expected, confirmatory factor analysis showed abetter fit for the two-factor rather than single-factormodel for PLSS and WAS items, supporting the distinc-tiveness of these two measures. Nevertheless, both mod-els demonstrated poor fit overall. This may be the resultof unstable factor structure of the WAS. Exploratoryfactor analyses of the WAS have found numerous factorstructures across different samples (Janoff-Bulman,1989; Littleton & Breitkopf, 2006; Rini et al., 2004),and confirmatory analyses have failed to consistentlysupport the hypothesized eight-factor model (Elklitet al., 2007; Kaler et al., 2008). Correlations betweenPLSS items and WAS subscales varied widely (r¼ .27to r¼ .70), suggesting that the wide range of beliefstapped by the WAS may not easily fit a one or twofactor model.

Limitations

The present study establishes the PLSS as a measure ofexcellent inter-item reliability, stable factor structure,and acceptable convergent, discriminant and criterionvalidity. Unfortunately, the present study was not ableto measure the test-retest reliability of the PLSS. ThePLSS is designed to measure life significance as a mod-erately stable construct, although it could be useful infuture studies to develop both state (i.e., momentaryfeelings of significance connected with specific experi-ences) and trait (i.e., temperamental qualities or lifecircumstances resulting in frequent feelings of signifi-cance) measures. Establishing the test-retest reliabilityof the PLSS will be helpful in both assessing the stabilityof the construct it measures, as well as safeguardingthe internal validity of studies that use this measure asa longitudinal variable.

Convergent and discriminant validity were assessedin the current study by comparing associations between

PERCEIVED LIFE SIGNIFICANCE SCALE 379

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rac

hel H

ibbe

rd]

at 1

2:59

01

June

201

5

several recall-based self-report measures. However,comparing variance attributable to the specific constructat hand with variance attributable to the response for-mat provides stronger evidence for the construct validityof a measure (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). Additionalexamination of the validity of the PLSS could incorpor-ate reports by others of the apparent life significanceof individuals; or, more usefully, examine the associ-ation of self-reported life significance with observablebehavioral indicators of existential well-being, such asprosocial behavior (Weinstein & Ryan, 2010), pursuitof intrinsic goals (Kasser, 2002), willingness to toleratedistress in service of valued ends (McCracken, 2010),and attention to valued stimuli in the present moment(Hayes et al., 2006).

The stability of factor structure and nomological netacross the community and student samples supports thegeneralizability of the PLSS. However, the scale wasdeveloped using qualitative data drawn from a bereavedpopulation and was tested on bereaved individuals only.The validity and usefulness of the PLSS outside thiscontext remains unclear. Certainly individuals strugglewith meaning after a variety of stressful life events(Holland et al., 2010; Janoff-Bulman, 1989). However, itis possible that bereavement, which forces confrontationwith the reality of death, raises the issue of lifesignificance in a way that some other stressors do not.The PLSS was written to be applicable whether or notthe respondent is bereaved; it will be interesting toexamine how this measure performs in other populationsin future research.

Future Study

In contemporary cognitive and constructionist theories,distress serves as a feedback mechanism, promptingsense-making as a means to restore meaning (Gillies &Neimeyer, 2006; Park & Folkman, 1997). Studies ofsense-making find that individuals who fail in effortsto explain the loss experience grief more intensely(Bonanno, Wortman, & Nesse, 2004). In contrast, thepresent study found a moderate positive associationbetween life significance and grief intensity across boththe student and community samples. Of additional inter-est is that, in the present samples, life significance wasnegatively associated with general negative affect anddepression, despite the positive association with griefintensity. This suggests a unique relationship betweenlife significance (as compared with other aspects ofmeaning) and grief distress (as compared with othernegative affective states).

Further research aimed at discovering the reasonfor this surprising correlation may shed light on therelationship between life significance as an aspect ofmeaning, as well as suggest larger implications for our

conceptualizations of distress and well-being. In contrastwith a hedonic model, which posits the presence of nega-tive affect as antithetical to well-being (Ryan & Deci,2001), grief distress may in itself be experienced as existen-tially valuable by some mourners (Frankl, 1955; Klass,2013). Of course, it is also possible that life significancecausally impacts grief distress; for instance, individualswho experience their lives as rich in valued experiencesmay feel more secure in a basic way, rendering them morewilling to either experience or acknowledge intense dis-tress (Hayes et al., 2006). Of note, the present study didnot examine the relationship of prolonged or complicatedgrief to life significance. Individuals who develop a pro-longed grief response may find that they are less able toexperience life significance as they develop a pattern ofavoidance of potentially-valued activities and interpersonalroles (Prigerson, Vanderwerker, & Maciejewski, 2008).Distinctions between ‘‘normal’’ grieving, pathological grief,and depression, an area of considerable clinical signifi-cance and debate, may be further informed by futurestudies of the role of life significance.

Relationships between life significance and contextualvariables should also be empirically examined. The associ-ation between PLSS scores and role involvements in thepresent study points to the importance of the psychosocialcontext in determining life significance following a loss.Interestingly, role involvements were most strongly asso-ciated with the Negative Life Significance subscale(r¼ .19), suggesting that important relationships andresponsibilities may provide an effective buffer againstthe perception of insignificance, emptiness, or pointless-ness. Future research may examine more specifically whattypes of roles are most facilitative of life significance andwhether the impact of role involvement depends on othervariables such as role satisfaction, role burden, andparticipation in role-specific activities (Hershberger &Walsh, 1990; Nordenmark, 2004).

As suggested by Hibberd (2013), another question forfuture research will be which activities and relationships,for which individuals, are most likely to engender life sig-nificance. For example, in the focus groups that providedqualitative data for this study, several older adults dis-cussed their concern that life significance may wane as theybecome less able, physically, to engage in favorite activi-ties; others forecast a changing trajectory of life signifi-cance, such that participation in more passive activities(e.g., being cared for by family members; sitting quietlyin the sun) becomes a primary source of significance. Ina similar vein, in cultural contexts that are less insistenton forward progress and goal completion, individualsmay be more likely to find significance by simply restingin ‘‘what is’’ (Schneider & Tong, 2008). From this perspec-tive life’s significance is not the hard-won dividend ofachievement, but a given of human existence, requiringonly the time and space to acknowledge it. It is our hope

380 R. HIBBERD AND B. VANDENBERG

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rac

hel H

ibbe

rd]

at 1

2:59

01

June

201

5

that the Active Life Significance and Receptive LifeSignificance scales can contribute to an understanding ofindividual, developmental, and cultural differences inpaths towards life significance.

Qualitative accounts of bereavement suggest that formany people, it is their confrontation with the fact ofdeath that prompts a renewed awareness of the valueof life and the need to engage fully in daily sources of lifesignificance (Wheeler, 2001). Yet, in controlled studies,effects of mortality salience vary widely (e.g., Solomonet al., 2004; Lykins et al., 2007). Further research in thisarea should consider the impact of loss variables (i.e.,sudden losses, death of a similar other, relationship todeceased) on both mortality salience and receptive lifesignificance; examining these variables in the contextof bereavement may be helpful in teasing out whenand for whom increased death awareness results in anenhanced appreciation of life.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study provides preliminary support for thereliability and validity of the Perceived Life SignificanceScale. Consistent with the proposed construct of life sig-nificance, the PLSS demonstrates convergent validitywith general measures of meaning and divergent validitywith depression, negative affect, and grief intensity.Further, the measure demonstrates divergent validitywith the World Assumptions Scale, the most widely usedmeasure of meaning as sense-making—suggesting thatthe PLSS may be a valuable tool to enhance our under-standing of the complex relationships between sense andsignificance as aspects of meaning. Future studies shouldinvestigate the role of life significance as both an out-come and as a predictor variable in bereavement,eventually integrating this important aspect of meaninginto our models of grief and recovery.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We extend gratitude to Kaylin Jones for her assistancewith this project.

REFERENCES

Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unraveling the mystery of health: How people

manage stress and stay well. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Antonovsky, A. (1993). The structure and properties of the sense of

coherence scale. Social Science in Medicine, 36, 725–733.

Armour, M. (2003). Meaning-making in the aftermath of homicide.

Death Studies, 27, 519–540.

Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings of life. New York, NY: Guilford

Press.

Bono, G., Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2004). Gratitude in

practice and the practice of gratitude. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph

(Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (pp. 464–481). Hoboken,

NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Bonanno, G. A., Wortman, C. B., & Nesse, R. M. (2004). Prospective

patterns of resilience and maladjustment during widowhood.

Psychology and Aging, 19, 260–271.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology.

Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.

Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research.

New York, NY: Guilford.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing

model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural

equation models (pp. 136–162). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant

validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological

Bulletin, 56, 81–105.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal

experience. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Davis, C. G., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Larson, J. (1998). Making sense

of loss and benefiting from the experience: Two construals of

meaning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 561–574.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-

determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.

DeVellis, R. F. (2011). Scale development: Theory and Applications.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dyck, M. J. (1987). Assessing logotherapeutic constructs: Conceptual

and psychometric status of the Purpose in Life and Seeking of

Noetic Goals Tests. Clinical Psychology Review, 7, 439–447.

Elklit, A., Shevlin, M., Solomon, Z., & Dekel, R. (2007). Factor

structure and concurrent validity of the World Assumptions Scale.

Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20, 291–301.

Eriksson, M., & Lindstrom, B. (2005). Validity of Antonovsky’s sense

of coherence scale: A systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology and

Community Health, 59, 460–466.

Faschingbauer, T. (1981). The Texas Inventory of Grief—Revised.

Houston, TX: Honeycomb Publishing.

Fiorentino, L. M. (1989). Sense of coherence and the stress-illness

relationship among employees: a prospective study. In H. I.

McCubbin, T. E. Thompson, & A. I. Thompson, (Eds). Stress,

Coping, and Health in Families. Sense of Coherence and Resiliency.

Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Frenz, A. W., Carey, M. P., & Jorgensen, R. S. (1993). Psychometric

evaluation of Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale. Psychological

Assessment, 5, 145–153.

Funk, S. C. (1992). Hardiness: A review of theory and research.

Health Psychology, 11, 335–345.

Frankl, V. E. (1955). The doctor and the soul. Toronto, Canada: Alfred

A. Knopf, Inc.

Klass, D. (2013). Sorrow and solace: Neglected areas in bereavement

research. Death Studies, 37, 597–616.

Gillies, J., & Neimeyer, R. (2006). Loss, grief, and the search for

significance: Toward a model of meaning reconstruction in

bereavement. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 19, 31–65.

Guo, Q., Li, F., Chen, X., Wang, W., & Meng, Q. (2008). Performance

of fit indices in different conditions and the selection of cut-off

values. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 40, 109–118.

Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J.

(2006). Acceptance and commitment therapy: Model, processes,

and outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 1–25.

Hershberger, P. J., & Walsh, W. B. (1990). Multiple role involvements

and the adjustment to conjugal bereavement: An exploratory study.

Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, 21(2), 91–102.

Hibberd, R. (2013). Meaning reconstruction in bereavement: Sense

and significance. Death Studies, 37, 670–692.

PERCEIVED LIFE SIGNIFICANCE SCALE 381

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rac

hel H

ibbe

rd]

at 1

2:59

01

June

201

5

Holland, J. M., Currier, J. M., Coleman, R. A., & Neimeyer, R. A.

(2010). The Integration of Stressful Life Experiences Scale (ISLES):

Development and initial validation of a new measure. International

Journal of Stress Management, 17, 325–352.

Hull, J. G., Van Treuren, R. R., & Virnelli, S. (1987). Hardiness and

health: A critique and alternative approach. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 53, 518–530.

Janoff-Bulman, R. (1989). Assumptive worlds and the stress of

traumatic events: Applications of the schema construct. Social

Cognition, 7, 113–136.

Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions: Towards a new

psychology of trauma. New York, NY: Free Press.

Kaler, M. E., Frazier, P. A., Anders, S. L., Tashiro, T., Tomich, P., Tennen,

H., & Park, C. (2008). Assessing the psychometric properties of the

World Assumptions Scale. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 21, 326–332.

Kashdan, T. B., & McNight, P. E. (2009). Origins of purpose in life:

Refining our understanding of a life well lived. Psychological Topics,

2, 303–316.

Kasser, T. (2002). The high price of materialism. Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.

Kenny, D. A., & McCoach, D. B. (2003). Effect of the number of

variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling.

Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 333–351.

King, L. A., Hicks, J. A., Krull, J. L., & Del Gaiso, A. K. (2006).

Positive affect and the experience of meaning in life. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 179–196.

King, L. A., & Napa, C. K. (1998). What makes a life good? Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 156–165.

Kohout, F. J., Berkman, L. F., Evans, D. A., &, Cornoni-Huntley, J.

(1993). Two shorter forms of the CES-D Depression Symptoms

Index. Journal of Aging and Health, 5, 179–193.

Littleton, H., & Breitkopf, C. R. (2006). Coping with the experience of

rape. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 106–116.

Lykins, E. L., Segerstrom, S. C., Averill, A. J., Evans, D. R., &

Kemeny, M. E. (2007). Goal shifts following reminders of mortality:

Reconciling posttraumatic growth and terror management theory.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1088–1099.

Maddi, S. R. (1987). Hardiness training at Illinois Bell Telephone. In J.

P. Opatz (Ed.), Health Promotion Evaluation (pp. 101–115). Stevens

Point, WI: National Wellness Institute.

Maddi, S. R. (1997). Personal Views Survey II: A measure of disposi-

tional hardiness. In C. P. Zalaquett & R. J. Woods (Eds.), Evaluat-

ing stress: A book of resources (pp. 293–310). New York, NY:

University Press.

Matthews, L. T., & Marwit, S. J. (2004). Examining the assumptive

world views of parents bereaved by accident, murder, and illness.

Omega, 48, 115–136.

McCracken, L. M. (2010). Psychological flexibility in adults with

chronic pain: A study of acceptance, mindfulness, and values-based

action in primary care. Pain, 148, 141–147.

Neimeyer, R. A. (2000). Searching for the meaning of meaning: Grief

therapy and the process of reconstruction. Death Studies, 24, 541–558.

Neimeyer, R. A., Hogan, N. S., & Laurie, A. (2008). The measurement

of grief: Psychometric considerations in the assessment of reactions

to bereavement. In M. S. Stroebe, R. O. Hansson, H. Schut, & W.

Stroebe (Eds.), Handbook of bereavement research and practice (pp.

133–161). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Nevitt, J., & Hancock, G. R. (2001). Performance of bootstrapping

approaches to model test statistics and parameter standard error

estimation in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation

Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 353–377.

Nordenmark, M. (2004). Multiple social roles and well-being:

A longitudinal test of the role stress theory and role expansion

theory. Acta Sociologica, 47, 115–126.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York,

NY: McGraw-Hill.

Park, C. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An

integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment

to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 257–301.Park, C. L., & Folkman, S. (1997). Meaning in the context of stress

and coping. Review of General Psychology, 2, 115–144.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.

Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R., & Sullivan, J. J. (2003). Making sense of

factor analysis: The use of factor analysis for instrument development

in health care research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Prigerson, H. G., Vanderwerker, L. C., & Maciejewski, P. K. (2008).

A case for inclusion of prolonged grief disorder in DSM-V. In

M. S. Stroebe, R. O. Hansson, H. Schut, & W. Stroebe (Eds.),

Handbook of bereavement research and practice: Advances in theory

and intervention (pp. 165–186). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-reported depression

scale for research in general population. Applied Psychological

Measurement, 1, 385–401.

Raftery, A. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research.

Sociological Methodology, 25, 111–163.

Rini, C., Manne, S., DuHamel, K. N., Austin, J., Ostroff, J., Boulad,

F., et al. (2004). Changes in mothers’ basic beliefs following a child’s

bone marrow transplantation: The role of prior trauma and

negative life events. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17, 325–333.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human

potentials: A review of research on hedoni and eudaimonic well-being.

Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.

Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (1998). The contours of positive human

health. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 1–28.

Sandell, R., Blomberg, J., Lazar, A. (1998). The factor structure of

Antonovsky’s Sense of Coherence Scale in Swedish clinical and non-

clinical samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 701–711.

Schneider, K., & Tong, B. (2008). Existentialism, Taoism, and

Buddhism: Two views. In L. Hoffman, M. Yang, F. J. Kaklauskas,

& A. J. Chan (Eds.), Existential psychology east-west (pp. 165–176).

Colorado Springs, CO: University of the Rockies Press.

Schwartzberg, S. S., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1991). Grief and the search

for meaning: Exploring the assumptive worlds of bereaved college

students. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10, 270–288.

Schneider, K. (2008). Existential-integrative psychotherapy: Guideposts

to the core of practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

Sinclair, R. R., & Tetrick, L. E. (2000). Implications of item wording

for hardiness structure, relation with neuroticism, and stress

buffering. Journal of Research in Personality 34, 1–25.

Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (2004). The cultural

animal: Twenty years of terror management theory research. In

J. Greenberg, S. L. Koole, & T. Pyszczynski (Eds.), Handbook of

experimental existential psychology (pp. 13–34). New York, NY:

Guilford Press.

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.

Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The posttraumatic growth

inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of

Traumatic Stress, 9, 455–471.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and vali-

dation of a brief measure of positive and negative affect: The PANAS

scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.

Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). When helping helps: Autonomous

motivation for prosocial behavior and its influence on well-being for

the helper and recipient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

98, 222–244.

Wheeler, I. (2001). Parental bereavement: The crisis of meaning.

Death Studies, 25, 51–66.

382 R. HIBBERD AND B. VANDENBERG

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rac

hel H

ibbe

rd]

at 1

2:59

01

June

201

5

APPENDIX: PERCEIVED LIFESIGNIFICANCE SCALE

Please respond to each of the following statements by indicating how often, or how completely, each statement is truefor you. Use the following scale:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Never=Completely

Disagree

Always=Completely

Agree

1. I feel satisfied and fulfilled by the things I do.2. There’s nothing in my life that really matters.�

3. I try to live my life to the fullest.4. There are moments when I’m powerfully aware of how valuable life is.5. I feel alive and full of vitality.6. I’m involved in activities that feel rewarding.7. My life feels like a waste of time.�

8. I really care about the things I am doing with my life.9. Sometimes something so special or meaningful happens that I get choked up.

10. I feel I have nothing to live for.�

11. My life is empty.�

12. The pain and suffering I’ve experienced connects me to other people who have also suffered.13. Life is too short to waste time on petty things.14. My life feels pointless at times.�

15. If you look closely, the world is a beautiful place.16. I am energized by the things I want to do in my life.17. I am deeply engaged in my life.18. I feel disconnected from the world.�

19. I am an active participant in my own life.

�Reverse-scored.

PERCEIVED LIFE SIGNIFICANCE SCALE 383

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rac

hel H

ibbe

rd]

at 1

2:59

01

June

201

5