Journal of Research in Personality 43 (2009) 428–437

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Research in Personality

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate/ j rp

What is it we are longing for? Psychological and demographic factorsinfluencing the contents of Sehnsucht (life longings)

Dana Kotter-Grühn a,*, Maja Wiest a,1, Peter Paul Zurek a, Susanne Scheibe a,b

a Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germanyb Department of Psychology, Stanford University, 450 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 21 January 2009

Keywords:SehnsuchtLife longingsSelf-regulationLifespan psychology

0092-6566/$ - see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Inc. Adoi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.01.012

* Corresponding author. Present address: DepartCarolina State University, Campus Box 7650, Raleigh,

E-mail addresses: dkotter@ncsu.edu (D. Kotter-GrüScheibe).

1 German Centre of Gerontology, Berlin, Germany

a b s t r a c t

Life longings (Sehnsucht) – defined as intense desires for ideal states of life that are remote or unattain-able – reflect individuals’ search for happiness and meaning and their struggle to cope with losses andunrealizable wishes. What do people think will make them feel happy? Do the sources of happinessand meaning change across adulthood, or differ by gender and education? In six studies, 1316 partici-pants aged 18–81 years listed their most important life longings. Raters coded these into one of 12 lifedomains. Most life longings evolved around family, partnership, and personal characteristics. Strongdesire for change increased the likelihood of mentioning life longings in some domains. Theory-consis-tent differences emerged between age groups, men and women, and less and more educated persons.

� 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

If we were to name our most important longings in life, whatwould they be? True love, fame, a happy family, a better function-ing body, or the home town that we have long left behind? Almosteverybody is familiar with the experience of desiring intenselysomething that appears to make life better and more completebut that is remote or unattainable. The concept of Sehnsucht (lifelongings), which has recently been introduced into the lifespandevelopmental literature (Baltes, 2008; Scheibe & Freund, 2008;Scheibe, Freund, & Baltes, 2007), captures thoughts and feelingsabout past, present, and future aspects of life that are incompleteor imperfect, coupled with a desire for ideal, alternative statesand experiences of life. Such thoughts and feelings are typically in-tense, recurring, and accompanied by a mixture of positive andnegative feelings, producing an ambivalent emotional experience.

What are the domains and aspects of life that life longings ad-dress most often, and why? By content-coding idiographic descrip-tions of life longings from six diverse samples, we investigated themost frequently reported content domains of life longings. Wetested the hypothesis that life longings occur most often in thosedomains over which individuals have low or moderate controlbut in which they have strong desire for change. Furthermore,we assumed that a ranking of content domains likely is not the

ll rights reserved.

ment of Psychology, NorthNC 27695-7650, USA.hn), scheibe@stanford.edu (S.

same for all groups of individuals. We therefore examined whethercontent domains varied for subgroups differing in age, gender, andsocioeconomic status.

Life longings can be defined as emotionally rich mental represen-tations of ideal, if not utopian, alternative states and expressions oflife (Baltes, 2008; Scheibe et al., 2007). Six characteristics are centralto this phenomenon (for the differentiation of life longings from re-lated concepts, see Mayser, Scheibe, & Riediger, 2008; Scheibe, Fre-und, & Blanchard-Fields, submitted for publication). First, lifelongings target aspects that are incomplete or imperfect, somethingessential that is missing in life. Second, life longings involve overlypositive, idealized, utopian imaginations of these missing aspects.Third, the two-edged focus on missing aspects and incompletenesson the one hand and fantasies about ideal, alternative realities onthe other hand elicits ambivalent, bittersweet emotions. Fourth, mem-ories of the past, reflections on the imperfect present, and fantasiesabout an idealized future merge in the phenomenon of life longingsto form a temporally complex experience (‘‘tritime focus”). Fifth, lifelongings are rich in symbolic meaning. When longing for a specific ob-ject, this object presumably stands for a network of broader motives,desires, and wishes at the core of a person’s identity. Finally, lifelongings make individuals reflect on and evaluate their life, compar-ing the status quo with ideals or successful others.

Life longings have at least two developmental functions for lifereview, planning, and management (Baltes, 2008; Scheibe et al.,2007). They can give direction to one’s life, functioning like utopianvisions or overarching goals from which more concrete goalsor values are derived. Further, life longings can operate ascompensatory self-regulatory mechanisms: Through imaginationand fantasy, important, yet unattainable aspects of life may be

D. Kotter-Grühn et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 43 (2009) 428–437 429

maintained and nurtured and thus contribute to feeling ‘‘morecomplete.” Although life longings have these positive functions,they are not unequivocally positive phenomena in the sense thatfrequent and intense life longings directly and inevitably optimizeindividuals’ happiness (Scheibe, Kunzmann, & Baltes, in press). Be-cause of their focus on incomplete aspects of life and the aware-ness that perfection is unreachable, there even appear to be costsfor well-being. High levels of life longings are consistently relatedto lower well-being and global desire for change in life (Kotter-Grühn, Scheibe, Blanchard-Fields, & Baltes, submitted for publica-tion; Scheibe et al., 2007). To be adaptive, life longings need tobe of moderate expression and under control, and moreover, needto be supplemented with other self-regulatory strategies, such asthe investment into (alternative) attainable goals.

Which content domains do life longings address most often?What are the fundamental concerns that individuals struggle withand strive for in their life longings? Hinting at the characteristic ofsymbolic richness, Boesch (1998) asserts that ultimately any lifelonging can be seen as a striving for happiness and meaning, whichhe defines as the experience of an optimal harmony between one-self and the world. Being happy and feeling that life is meaningfulare often viewed as two components of ‘‘what makes life good”(King & Napa, 1998).

What do people think will make them feel happy and meaning-ful? The literature often posits that well-being is contingent on thefulfillment of fundamental motives or needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000).Accordingly, we assumed that life longings are most often directedat domains of life that are tied to fundamental motivations. Forexample, self-determination theory assumes that individuals havethree overarching needs: competence, autonomy, and relatedness.The fulfillment of these needs is considered the basis for self-moti-vation, personality integration, and optimal functioning (Ryan &Deci, 2000). Similarly, Bakan (1966) poses two fundamental hu-man motivations: agency – the existence of the organism as anindividual, and communion – the participation of an individual ina larger social group. Emphasizing especially the aspect of commu-nion, Baumeister and Leary (1995) suggest that humans have afundamental need to belong, that is, to form and maintain enduringinterpersonal attachments. Drawing on theoretical writings in thehumanistic tradition, Ryff (1989) identified six core aspects of thefully functioning person: purpose in life, personal growth, positiverelations with others, autonomy, environmental mastery, and self-acceptance.

We hypothesized that life longings revolve around these kindsof fundamental motives, needs, or aspects of the good life. Formingand maintaining intimate and warm connections with othersshould be prominent themes of life longings. In this vein, we ex-pected many life longings to relate to the domains of partnership,family, and friendships. Themes of agency, striving for indepen-dence, achievement, and mastery were also expected to be impor-tant. Agency is relevant to a number of life domains, but perhapsespecially in the domains of health/physical well-being (havingan efficient body and being able to lead a healthy, self-determinedlife) and work (finding a fulfilling job and performing well), whichshould therefore be prominent domains in which persons developlife longings. Finally, autonomy and positive attitudes towardsoneself, the ability to accept oneself, should be evident in life long-ings pertaining to personal characteristics.

From an interindividual-difference perspective, people vary inthe strength of motive dispositions or needs for communion,agency, and self-acceptance, and in the extent to which theseneeds are fulfilled in their social relationships, work, and other do-mains. Accordingly, the specific themes of incompleteness andimperfection will differ from one person to the next. One individ-ual may struggle with an unsatisfactory marriage, whereas anothermay be concerned with the consequences of chronic illness. Know-

ing a person’s motive dispositions therefore will not suffice. Wepropose that life longings emerge from a combination of strong de-sire for change and a sense of medium to low control. That is, indi-viduals who wish for change in a certain domain but experienceonly limited control over it are likely to develop a life longing inthat domain. This hypothesis is consistent with the proposal thatlife longings are directed at idealized aspects of life that are highlyimportant to persons, yet not fully attainable and controllable.

The needs or motives outlined above are probably not equallysalient across the lifespan, nor will the domains in which personshave both strong desire for change and limited control remainthe same from childhood to old age. As they move through life,individuals are confronted with normative, age-graded develop-mental tasks and themes arising from the joint operation of phys-ical maturation and senescence, societal expectations, andindividual preferences (Erikson, 1980; Havighurst, 1972). Achiev-ing these age-related tasks is considered an important prerequisitefor a happy and fulfilled life. For instance, typical tasks in youngadulthood include finding a partner, starting a family, and gettingstarted in one’s career. Reaching and maintaining satisfactory per-formance in one’s occupational career and balancing work andfamily are typical tasks of middle adulthood, and adjusting todecreasing physical strength, health, and loss of social partners,as well as promoting the well-being of future generations areimportant tasks in old age.

Life longings should become relevant as individuals strugglewith incompleteness and imperfection in achieving the typicaltasks of their developmental stage, and as they review or plan theirlives as a whole (Baltes, 2008). Consequently, contents of life long-ings are expected to reflect current and past (unattained) develop-mental tasks and themes. In previous studies using self-ratings oflife domains, we found first empirical evidence for these assump-tions (Mayser et al., 2008; Scheibe et al., 2007). In the currentstudy, we tried to replicate findings on age differences in the con-tents of life longings in a larger, more diverse sample and in con-tent-coded descriptions of life longings rather than in self-ratedcontent domains. We expected that life longings of young adultswould most frequently refer to partnership, self-development,and work/education. Life longings of middle-aged adults were ex-pected to still focus primarily on work and partnership, but also onfamily. Different from younger age groups, life longings of olderadults were expected to primarily address family and health topics,as well as politics, society, and the state of the world at large.

Besides age differences, we expect gender differences in thecontents of life longings. Gender differences in personality and so-cial behavior have been documented in many empirical studies (foran overview see Hyde, 2005). Men’s roles in society are often asso-ciated with greater status and power, and to perform these rolessuccessfully, men are assumed to strive for agency, dominance,achievement, and autonomy. Stereotypically, women’s roles, incontrast, revolve more around the caring for children and otherpersons in need, which leads to an orientation towards commu-nion, relatedness, and social cooperation (Eagly & Wood, 1999).Partly reflecting these different social roles, studies on personalityfound that across cultures, women score higher than men on neu-roticism, agreeableness, gregariousness, and warmth, and lower onassertiveness and excitement seeking (Costa, Terracciano, & McC-rae, 2001; Schmitt, Realo, Voracek, & Allik, 2008). Proceeding fromthis literature, we investigated gender differences in the contentsof life longings. Reflecting their different orientations towardscommunion and agency and their typical social roles and personal-ity differences, we predicted women to more often report life long-ings addressing interpersonal relationships and men to more oftenreport life longings addressing work/education.

We further assume that individuals’ life longings differ by socio-economic background. By determining persons’ access to a variety

Table 1Socio-demographic characteristics of the total sample and the subsamples of Studies 1–6.

Study Sample size Age range Mean age (SD) % Women % Highly educateda

Total N = 1316 18–81 39.1 (16.1) 65 72Study 1 n = 299 adults 19–81 49.9 (17.0) 49 58Study 2 n = 81 adults 20–69 48.3 (14.1) 54 58Study 3 n = 111 adults 18–78 46.9 (22.5) 50 54Study 4 n = 146 studentsb 19–30 24.2 (2.6) 50 100Study 5 n = 168 childless women 31–61 45.2 (6.6) 100 77Study 6 n = 511 online participants 18–69 31.8 (11.0) 72 89

a High school degree or higher.b No major in psychology.

2 For reasons not relevant to this report, some participants read a life phaseinstruction and some read a life domain instruction. Type of instruction did not havean influence on the frequency of mentioning life longings in certain life domains.

430 D. Kotter-Grühn et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 43 (2009) 428–437

of social opportunity structures, including higher education,employment status, job position, and material goods, housing,and leisure activities, socioeconomic status has a strong impacton persons’ lives. One of the most well-established findings onthe role of socioeconomic status is its relation to health: Membersof lower socioeconomic status have more chronic and comorbiddiseases, more somatic and psychological problems, and shorterlives than persons with higher socioeconomic status (Adler et al.,1994). Further, persons with lower socioeconomic status reportlower self-esteem, more negative attitudes towards other people,as well as less supportive, more stressful social relationships (Mar-mot et al., 1991; Ranchor, Bouma, & Sanderman, 1996). In a US na-tional survey, people with lower income and less educationreported that material possessions would make them happier thanexperiences, whereas the opposite was true for people with higherincome and education (Van Boven & Gilovich, 2003). In the presentstudy, we investigated content differences in life longings as afunction of education, which is a common indicator of socioeco-nomic status, along with occupation and income. Reflecting socio-economic status differences in health, personality, and socialbehavior, we expected life longings of less educated persons to re-volve more often around health, and less often around occupa-tional achievement and personal characteristics than life longingsof highly educated persons.

Drawing on six samples representing various age groups, bothgenders, and different educational backgrounds we investigatedthe most prominent topics that life longings address. As part oftheir respective protocols, all participants generated a list of idio-syncratic life longings, selected their two most important life long-ings, and provided a keyword and short explanation for each. Thesedescriptions were content-coded for their primary life domain.Based on this coding, we determined the top domains addressedby life longings in general and for subgroups differing in age, gen-der, and socioeconomic background. Subsamples further rated howmuch they desired change in each of 12 life domains and to whatextent they experienced control over these domains. The list of lifedomains in these ratings was the same as in the content analyzesof life longings, allowing us to examine our hypothesis that lifelongings are directed at those domains in which individuals havea strong desire for change but limited control.

2. Method

2.1. Participants and procedures

The sample comprised 1316 persons between 18 and 81 years(M = 39.1; SD = 16.1), drawn from six studies (see Table 1 for de-tails of the subsamples). Women (65%) and highly educated per-sons (72% had a high school degree or higher) wereoverrepresented. Participants were recruited via a random dialingprocedure (Study 1), newspaper advertisement (Studies 2, 3, and5), announcement in a university (Study 4), or via the Internet

(Study 6). Participants received about €10 per hour, except for per-sons from Study 6 who received personal feedback. For our ana-lyzes of age group differences, participants were assigned to sixage groups, each group representing one decade. The respectivegroup sizes were: 18–29 years: n = 513; 30–39 years: n = 249;40–49 years: n = 216; 50–59 years: n = 148; 60–69 years: n = 116;70+ years: n = 70.

The majority of participants attended a group session of 2–20people. Participants generated a list of personal life longings de-fined as ‘‘strong wishes for persons, things, events, or experiencesfrom your personal past, present, or future that are intense, endur-ing, and not easily attainable at present” (Scheibe et al., 2007).Afterwards they selected their two most important life longings.In all studies except Study 4 this task was supported by a ‘‘guidedmental journey through life,” in which participants visualizedeither five different life phases (childhood, youth, young adult-hood, middle adulthood, and old age) or four different life domains(personal relationships, health/personal situation, view on oneself,other).2 In the life phase instruction, participants were asked tothink about whether there were any particularly important places,persons, experiences, or events in each life period. In the life domaininstruction, they were asked to think about what was especiallyimportant for them in the respective domain. Subsequently, theywere asked to list life longings (if they had any) linked to each phaseor domain of life (for the exact wording of instructions see Scheibeet al., 2007). Study 4 used at random the mental journey, a more in-tense audio-guided induction, or no support for the generation of lifelongings.

2.2. Coding of life longings

Using a coding taxonomy that was developed based on the lit-erature on personal goals (e.g., Heckhausen, Wrosch, & Fleeson,2001; Nurmi, 1992), life longings were coded into one of 12 do-mains: Partnership, personal characteristics, family, work/educa-tion, health and physical well-being, friendship, leisure,environmental context, life period/death and dying, finances, soci-etal values and politics, and religiosity. Over 99% of all life longingswere codable into one of these life domains. Table 2 gives examplesfor each category. For each study two independent raters weretrained in the coding taxonomy using material from pilot studies.After coding the pilot material agreement was evaluated in eachcase and deviating ratings were resolved through discussions. Aftertraining, one rater coded 100% of the material and a second coderdouble-coded 15%. Material was presented in random orderremoving information about sociodemographic characteristics. Co-hen’s kappa values for the six studies were satisfactory rangingfrom .76 to .87.

Table 2Life domain categories and sample life longings.

Category Sample life longing

Partnership To grow old together with my wife. Not to lose the partner I love, and not to have to leave her behindPersonal characteristics To be able to accept and like myself the way I am, including my shortcomings and weaknessesFamily My parents got divorced when I was a teenager. Will I be able to have a happy family myself?Work/education I want to be a famous actress who plays in good movies and on stage, and who is loved by the audienceHealth and physical well-being Stay healthy and remain free from pain so that I am able to do various things, such as hikingFriendship Longing for my friends with whom I have lost close contact after having moved awayLeisure I read many animal books about Africa and wanted to go there. Even after having been there, the longing remainsEnvironmental context To live by the sea, feel the wind and fresh air, the silence, and the sound of the waves. This feels like home for me, like freedom and

independenceLife period/death and dying My wonderful childhood when I was close to natureFinances Money and financial independence: No longer having to think about work, earning money, etc.Societal values and politics To stop injustice and destruction, poverty and hungerReligiosity To find myself through God, the most important thing in life

D. Kotter-Grühn et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 43 (2009) 428–437 431

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Desire for changeA subsample of 528 persons (participants of Studies 1, 2, and 5)

rated on a six-point scale reaching from 0 (not at all) to 5 (com-pletely) their desire for change in the same 12 life domains thatwere used for coding life longings (adjusted Desire-for-ChangeScale by Filipp & Ferring, 1991; sample item ‘‘How much do youwish for change in the domain of family?”). Higher scores are indic-ative of stronger desire for change. Cronbach’s a for the three stud-ies ranged from .74 to .79.

2.3.2. Control over life domainsOn a six-point scale reaching from 0 (not at all) to 5 (com-

pletely), participants of Studies 1 and 5 (N = 467) rated their per-sonal control over the same 12 life domains used for coding lifelongings (sample item ‘‘How much control do you have in the domainfamily?”; cf. Lachman & Weaver, 1998). A higher score indicatesstronger control over a life domain. Internal consistencies wereacceptable (aStudy 1 = .79, aStudy 5 = .70).

2.3.3. Socioeconomic backgroundWe used education status as an indicator of socioeconomic

background. For our analyzes of education differences, the samplewas split into two groups with n = 362 having no high school de-gree and n = 946 having a high school degree or higher.

2.3.4. Rating of life longingsParticipants of Studies 1, 3, and 6 rated each of their two life

longings on the Life Longing Questionnaire (Scheibe et al., 2007),which assesses the extent to which individuals’ life longings reflectthe six structural characteristics: personal utopia (Cronbach’s a forthe six different studies ranged from .54 to .65 with a mean of .59),sense of incompleteness (.51–.77, .67), tritime focus (.56–.70, .62),ambivalent emotions (.71–.83, .76), life reflection and evaluation(.71–.79, .75), and symbolic richness (.48–.67, .60). The question-naire contains further scales measuring the sense of control overthe experience of the life longing (.63–.85, .77) and its perceiveddirectionality function (.75–.86, .79) and managing nonrealizabili-ty function (.68–.81, .73). On a six-point scale reaching from 0(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), participants rated state-ments such as ‘‘I am longing for something too perfect to be true”(Personal Utopia subscale).

3. Results

3.1. Comparability of life longings with different contents

One potential point of critique is that life longings addressingdifferent life domains may not be comparable to each other. Before

addressing the main research questions of this study, we thereforeempirically tested the comparability of life longings with differentcontents. We conducted profile analyzes and follow-up analyzes ofvariance (ANOVAs) comparing the eight most frequently men-tioned life domains (see next paragraph) with respect to nine vari-ables: the six structural characteristics of life longings(incompleteness, symbolic meaning, personal utopia, reflection/evaluation, tritime focus, emotional ambivalence), the two func-tions of life longings (directionality and managing nonrealizabili-ty), and control over the experience of life longings. In 82% of allpair-wise comparisons, the profiles were in fact comparable, allps > .002 (Bonferroni-corrected a level). This speaks against the cri-tique that life longing characteristics might be strongly influencedby content. There were two life domains, though, for which theprofiles deviated more often from the other profiles: partnershipand leisure (comparison of partnership, leisure, and an aggregationof the other domains regarding profile differences:F(16,1570) = 6.64, p < .001, g2 = 06). Partnership-related life long-ings had relatively high scores on most life longing characteristicswhereas leisure-related life longings had relatively low scores onmost scales, with the remaining content domains being in be-tween, F(2,791) = 13.03, p < .001, g2 = 03.

3.2. Content domains of life longings

To examine which content domains life longings address mostoften, we computed the frequencies with which life longings werelisted in the various content domains (see Fig. 1). For both the firstand the second life longing, the three most prominent themes werepartnership, personal characteristics, and family. Although theirrank order was not completely identical, the next five categorieswere equivalent for the first and second life longing, namelywork/education, health/physical well-being, friendship, leisure,and environmental context. The domains finances, societal val-ues/politics, life period, and religion were mentioned in less than5% of all cases and will thus not be further considered in subse-quent analyzes.

3.3. The predictive effects of desire for change and controllability

Testing the hypothesis that life longings are more likely direc-ted at domains in which individuals experience strong desire forchange and low to medium control, we conducted a sequential lo-gistic regression analysis for each of the eight most frequentlymentioned life domains. Domain-specific controllability and desirefor change were entered in Step 1, the squared term of controllabil-ity in Step 2, the interaction between desire for change and con-trollability in Step 3, and the interaction between desire forchange and the squared term of controllability in Step 4. Predictorswere centered prior to analyzes (cf. Aiken & West, 1991).

Fig. 1. Frequencies and rank orders of life longings in 12 life domains for the most important life longing (A) and the second most important life longing (B).

432 D. Kotter-Grühn et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 43 (2009) 428–437

For health/physical well-being, friendship, and leisure neither ofthe tested variables predicted whether or not a person listed a lifelonging in the respective domain. In the remaining five domains, atleast one variable emerged as significant predictor. The likelihoodof mentioning a life longing targeting personal characteristics(B = .23, p < .01, Odds Ratio [OR] = 1.26), family (B = .26, p < .01,OR = 1.30), partnership (B = .25, p < .001, OR = 1.28), or environ-mental context (B = .56, p < .001, OR = 1.76) was higher for thoseindividuals who reported a stronger desire for change in therespective life domain. Contrary to hypotheses, neither the linearnor the quadratic term of controllability over a life domain had adirect predictive effect on the occurrence of life longings.

Controllability did, however, play a role in predicting the occur-rence of a life longing when entered into the regression equation inan interaction term with desire for change. Significant interactioneffects between desire for change and controllability (linear andsquared) were found for work/education (desire for change � lin-ear controllability: B = .17, p < .05, OR = 1.19; desire forchange � quadratic controllability: B = .10, p < .05, OR = 1.10), envi-ronmental context (desire for change � linear controllability:B = �.26, p < .05, OR = .77; desire for change � quadratic controlla-bility: B = �.15, p < .01, OR = .86), and family (desire forchange � linear controllability: B = �.14, p < .05, OR = .87; desirefor change � quadratic controllability: B = �.06, p < .05, OR = .95).To illustrate these moderator effects, the sample was divided into

two equal groups based on the extent of their desire for change(see Fig. 2). As expected, the probability of listing a life longing re-lated to family or environmental context was highest in individualswho had both a low to medium sense of control and a strong desirefor change in the respective domain. The pattern was less clear forwork/education. The probability of listing a life longing concerningwork/education was highest in individuals reporting either verylow or very high controllability over this domain but at the sametime a strong desire for change. All reported effects remained sta-ble after controlling for age and gender.

3.4. Contents of life longings as a function of age, gender, andeducation

Using v2-tests, we investigated whether the frequencies withwhich the first or second life longing targeted each of the eightcontent domains differed as a function of age, gender, and socio-economic background. Fig. 3 illustrates age-related findings. Ex-cept for friendship (p = .09), age groups differed significantly inall domains (health/physical well-being: v2(5, N = 1214) = 72.3,p < .001; partnership: v2(5, N = 1235) = 25.5, p < .001; personalcharacteristics: v2(5, N = 1226) = 33.4, p < .001; work/education:v2(5, N = 1215) = 15.6, p < .01; family: v2(5, N = 1219) = 18.8,p < .01; environmental context: v2(5, N = 1211) = 14.6, p < .05; lei-sure: v2(5, N = 1214) = 15.5, p < .05).

Fig. 2. Probability of listing a life longing concerning family (A), environmentalcontext (B), or work/education (C) as a function of their controllability andseparately for individuals with high (solid line) vs. low (dotted line) desire forchange in the respective domain.

D. Kotter-Grühn et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 43 (2009) 428–437 433

Exploring the age trajectory of each life domain, sequential logis-tic regression analyzes were conducted with the linear, quadratic,and cubic term of age as predictors (each entered into the model inseparate steps to control for possible nonlinear trajectories) andpresence of a life longing in the respective life domain (yes/no) as cri-terion. Life longings in the domains work/education (B = �.016,p < .01, OR = .985), partnership (B = �.018, p < .001, OR = .982), andpersonal characteristics (B = �.022, p < .001, OR = .978) showed alinear decrease in frequency over age, all v2 (1) > 9.65, p < .01. Thatis, the older persons were the less likely were they to list a life longingin these domains. The frequency of family-related life longings in-creased with age (B = .009, OR = 1.009, v2 (1) = 4.73, p < .05).Health/physical well-being and environmental context showed

nonlinear age trajectories as indicated by a significant increase inmodel fit when adding the quadratic age terms, all v2 (1) > 4.74,p < .05. Health-related life longings were more frequently reporteduntil age 60 and their frequency then slightly decreased (linear ageeffect B1 = .071, OR = 1.073; quadratic age effect B2 = �.002,OR = .998, both ps < .001). The likelihood of life longings concerningenvironmental context increased until midlife and then decreased(B2 = �.001, p < .05, OR = .999). No significant age trajectory wasfound for leisure (although thev2-test was significant), probably be-cause of low sample size in this domain.

Men and women differed in their frequencies of life longings inonly two life domains. Men were less likely than women to list lifelongings referring to the domains environmental context (8.2% vs.12.4%; v2(1, N = 1214) = 5.0, p < .05) and family (22.1% vs. 28.5%;v2(1, N = 1222) = 6.0, p < .05). Education also affected the contentsof life longings. Less educated participants were more likely thanhighly educated participants to list life longings referring tohealth/physical well-being (16.2% vs. 9.9%; v2(1, N = 1216) = 9.3,p < .01) and family (30.4% vs. 24.4%; v2(1, N = 1222) = 4.6, p < .05)and less likely to list life longings related to personal characteris-tics (26.4% vs. 38.5%; v2(1, N = 1223) = 15.6, p < .001).

In order to control for possible interaction effects between age,gender, and education, a separate logistic regression analysis wasconducted for each life domain with linear age, quadratic age, gen-der, education, and the interactions of age � gender and age � edu-cation as predictors (all entered in one step) and presence of a lifelonging in the respective life domain (yes/no) as criterion. Therewere two significant interaction effects, an age � gender interac-tion for partnership (B = .019, p < .05, OR = 1.019) and family(B = �.031, p < .001, OR = .97). Middle-aged women (40–59 years)reported more partnership-related life longings than men in thisage group. In addition, women between 18 and 39 years reportedmore family-related life longings than same-aged men whereaswomen aged 60–69 years reported less family-related life longingsthan same-aged men.

4. Discussion

4.1. The most important life longings and the role of desire for changeand controllability

With their utopian character life longings are assumed to repre-sent individuals’ quest for happiness and meaning in life and theirstruggle to cope with losses and unrealizable wishes. What do peo-ple think will make them feel happy and give them a sense ofmeaningfulness? The present study yields support for the assump-tion that life longings revolve most often around those content do-mains that reflect basic human motives or developmental tasksand in which individuals experience a strong desire for changebut limited control. We found that individuals’ top three life long-ings address partnership, family, and personal characteristics. Thelikelihood of listing life longings in these domains was especiallyhigh when individuals reported strong desire for change. Life long-ings concerning work, friendship, health, leisure, and environmen-tal context were also mentioned frequently. Only in relatively fewcases did life longings address finances, societal values, past or fu-ture life periods, or religion. It seems that these domains are asource of feelings of personal incompleteness for only few persons.

The high frequency of life longings concerning partnership andfamily, and to a lesser extent friendships, indicates that commu-nion is the motivation reflected most often in life longings (Bakan,1966; McClelland, 1987; also the need to belong, Baumeister &Leary, 1995; relatedness, Ryan & Deci, 2000; or positive relationswith others, Ryff, 1989). Communion is one of the basic humanmotives and it is therefore not surprising that individuals in our

Fig. 3. Frequencies of life longings by domain and age group. (A) The frequencies for partnership, personal characteristics, work/education, and friendship. (B) The frequenciesfor family, health, leisure, and environmental context. *p < .05, **p < .01 and ***p < .001.

434 D. Kotter-Grühn et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 43 (2009) 428–437

study developed life longings in the realm of social relationships,particularly when they strongly desired change and/or experiencedconstraints in the fulfillment of this motive. Baumeister and Learyargue that the need to belong can be satisfied by two interrelatedaspects: frequent contact with others (i.e., having a large socialnetwork) and intimate, empathetic caring (i.e., having close, satis-fying relationships). Persons have often only little control over oth-ers caring about them in an intimate, empathetic way (Morling &Evered, 2006). For instance, although family is of crucial impor-tance for many persons, individuals are regularly confronted withfamily-related conflicts or situations that they want to changebut over which they have limited control. A family is a dynamicenvironment, and one’s own wishes regarding family need to bealigned with those of other family members (e.g., starting a familyusually requires a partner who also wants to have children). Inaddition, persons might have overly positive conceptions about aperfect relationship or family and the realization of such utopiasis difficult, if not impossible. Confirming this view, in the presentstudy, the combination of strong desire for change and limited con-trol was predictive of the development of life longings in the familydomain. We suggest that life longings are likely to develop underthese conditions because they can be mental substitutes for highlyimportant aspects in life that one wants to have (or change) butcannot do so. In this sense, life longings function as loss-basedcompensatory strategies that can come into play when primarycontrol behaviors (i.e., efforts to change the external world by ac-tive action) are less efficient (Kotter-Grühn et al., submitted forpublication; Scheibe et al., 2007).

The high frequency of life longings concerning personal charac-teristics, particularly when individuals experienced a strong desirefor change in this life domain, reflects the importance but also dif-ficulties in attaining personal motives dealing with self-actualiza-tion (Maslow, 1954), self-acceptance (Ryff, 1989), or autonomy(Ryan & Deci, 2000). The life longings that participants mentionedin this domain were often relatively abstract and complex, such as‘‘To be able to accept and love myself the way I am, including myshortcomings and weaknesses”. Such cognitive representations ofthe ‘‘ideal self” are important parts of identity but these imagesare difficult to translate into concrete behavior at the level of goalpursuit. They likely often remain idealized, action-removedimaginations.

As in the domain of family, we found that life longings concern-ing environmental context and work were more likely to be men-tioned when participants reported a strong desire for change andlimited control in these domains. Many persons wish for changewith respect to their living conditions or other aspects related totheir environmental context. However, this domain is also oftennot completely controllable because the fulfillment of goals con-cerning one’s environmental context depends on many other cir-cumstances such as money, work place, or family. The resultpattern for the domain of work was less well interpretable andshould be backed up by additional research.

Although health, friendship, and leisure were frequently men-tioned life longings, neither desire for change nor controllabilitypredicted their occurrence. Having (or not having) control over alife domain by itself (i.e., independent of its interaction with desire

D. Kotter-Grühn et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 43 (2009) 428–437 435

for change) did not directly predict the occurrence of life longingsin any domain. Although this finding was unexpected, it convergeswith previous findings and differentiates the construct of life long-ings from the related construct of goals. In a study on involuntarychildlessness in middle-aged women, control was found to be anessential antecedent and correlate of goal pursuit, but did not pre-dict the emergence of life longings (Kotter-Grühn et al., submittedfor publication, see also Mayser et al., 2008). Action-theoretical ap-proaches emphasize that persons are more likely to choose andpursue goals that they experience as realizable and controllablethan goals over which they do not have control (Brandtstädter,2006; Gollwitzer & Bargh, 1996). In contrast, life longings canemerge independent of a sense of control.

4.2. What we long for partly depends on age

Although partnership, personal characteristics, and family werethe top three domains in each age group, we found age group dif-ferences in the relative emphasis of seven out of eight life domains.Such differences are in line with the theoretical proposition thatdifferent stages in life deal with different developmental tasks(Erikson, 1980; Havighurst, 1972) and are characterized by differ-ent opportunity structures (e.g., Wrosch & Heckhausen, 2005). Ourfindings on age group differences in the contents of life longingsare also consistent with research on goals showing that goal con-tents and goal orientations change over the life course as a resultof changing personal and societal requirements and resources(e.g., Ebner, Freund, & Baltes, 2006; Nurmi, 1992).

The higher frequency of life longings addressing work, partner-ship, and personal characteristics in younger age groups points tothe particular importance of establishing a career and partnershipearly in adulthood (Cantor, 1994). It also underlines the idea thatwith advancing age, utopian conceptions regarding personal char-acteristics in the form of life longings may become less crucial foridentity and meaning in life. Partnership remained a frequentsource of life longings until middle adulthood, showing a steep de-crease thereafter. Particularly middle-aged women reported morepartnership-related life longings than same-aged men. Given soci-etal expectations for developmental deadlines the best time toestablish a partnership is until middle age (Settersten & Hägestad,1996). Later on this becomes more difficult (cf. Wrosch & Heckhau-sen, 1999). Due to negative stereotypes about romantic relation-ships in the elderly, partnership is often considered lessimportant or even inappropriate in this age group. However, part-nership is also a domain of historical change, suggesting that someage group differences may reflect cohort differences. Given today’shigh divorce rates and changing societal expectations, in future co-horts, individuals may be continuously searching for new partnersand partnership may remain an important topic even until old age.

Older age groups were more likely to mention life longingsabout family than younger age groups. Interestingly, family-relatedlife longings were as frequent in middle-aged adults as they werein young adults. Thus, already young adults appear to develop ide-alized conceptions about family (e.g., having one’s own happy fam-ily). Furthermore, 18–39 year old women mentioned family-related life longings more often than men in this age group, prob-ably reflecting the biological deadline of childbearing for womenand perceived societal developmental deadlines for starting a fam-ily (cf. Heckhausen et al., 2001; Settersten & Hägestad, 1996). Webelieve that the increasing importance of family-related life long-ings in older age can be partly explained by the transition fromwork to retirement, which requires a new orientation towardsnonwork-related sources of purpose in life (Kim & Moen, 2002).The finding that especially 60–69 year-old men frequently re-ported family-related life longings supports this assumption. Inaddition, becoming grandparents or becoming more dependent

upon support by family members due to age-related decreases inresources (Zarit & Eggebeen, 2002) can increase the importanceof family in older age. According to socioemotional selectivity the-ory, persons who perceive their remaining lifetime as restricted (asis often the case in older persons) are more likely to focus on thoseaspects that are very close to the person and emotionally meaning-ful, which family members often are (Carstensen, 2006).

For health and environmental context, we found nonlinear tra-jectories across age. Life longings addressing environmental con-text were particularly frequent in middle-aged adults. This mightbe the time when persons have already accomplished many impor-tant aspects in their lives and therefore focus on other sources ofhappiness and meaning such as settling down, having better livingconditions, living in harmony with the nature/environment, or liv-ing at another place (e.g., living at the sea or in another country).Life longings concerning health and well-being were increasinglymentioned up until the age of 60 years, after which the frequencyremained high (although it slightly decreased). With advancingage, health often declines and health concerns increasingly emerge(e.g., Steinhagen-Thiessen & Borchelt, 1999). This likely makeshealth more personally important and imperfection and incom-pleteness in this life domain particularly salient. Moreover,although persons can engage in health behaviors that influencelong-term health outcomes, there are always health-compromisingcircumstances and conditions beyond personal control.

4.3. What we long for partly differs by gender and socioeconomicbackground

Women in this study were more likely than men to list life long-ings concerning family and environmental context, confirminggender stereotypes and women’s typical societal roles as the pri-mary caretakers of the family (especially children) and the home.Particularly the higher frequency of family-related life longingsin women as compared to men reflects the importance of commu-nion orientation and relatedness as basic motives in women’s lives(cf. Eagly & Wood, 1999). Results extend previous research onother motivational constructs. For instance, King and Broyles(1997) showed that female students made more interpersonalwishes (involving other persons) than men, whereas male studentswere more likely than females to make intrapersonal wishes(involving only the self). We did not find that men report more lifelongings targeting work and education. This might be due tochanges in some social roles over the last decades. In the contextof female emancipation, work and education have become impor-tant components of both men’s and women’s identity. Anotherexplanation is the still existing inequality of job opportunities formen and women, perhaps leading to equal numbers of life longingsfor different reasons. Whereas men’s work-related life longingsmight express their stronger orientation toward achievement, wo-men’s life longings might more often arise from their lowerchances on the job market, discrimination, or struggle betweenwork- and family-related demands.

Besides age and gender, life longing contents were partly influ-enced by educational level (as an indicator of socioeconomic sta-tus). Less educated persons in this study listed more health- andfamily-related life longings and less life longings concerning per-sonal characteristics than individuals with higher education. Thehigher importance of health for persons with lower educationlikely reflects objective health disadvantages that individuals withlower socioeconomic status often face (Adler et al., 1994). But whywould less educated people list more family-related life longings?A possible explanation is that they are more likely to have grownup or to live in less stable families (Repetti, Taylor, & Seeman,2002). Consequently, they might more often develop idealized con-ceptions (in the form of life longings) of a stable or perfect family.

436 D. Kotter-Grühn et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 43 (2009) 428–437

An additional interpretation is that highly educated persons mayrealize themselves in other areas (e.g., career) more than in theirfamilies, so that this domain is relatively less important. Personalcharacteristics, in contrast, were more frequently mentioned byhighly educated persons than by less educated persons. Consider-ing notions that personal needs and motives are hierarchically or-ganized in that lower-order needs (such as physical well-being orsecurity) have to be fulfilled before engaging with higher-orderneeds (such as self-actualization, e.g., Maslow, 1954) may help ex-plain this finding. Due to a better socioeconomic status, it can beassumed that lower-order needs are more easily met in highly edu-cated persons, so that they can focus their attention on issues likeself-actualization, autonomy, or self-acceptance.

4.4. Limitations and outlook

The present study offers an initial snapshot of the content do-mains that life longings address most often. Future research shouldzoom in on individual domains and distinguish them at a morefine-graded level. It could be speculated for instance that with re-spect to the domain of work, highly educated persons’ life longingsrevolve more often around getting ahead in one’s career, attaininghigher positions and having more responsibilities, whereas lesseducated persons may primarily express longings for finding a(well-paid) job and having better job conditions. These examplesrelate to another potential limitation, namely that categories inour coding system may differ in their broadness, which influencesthe frequency of life longings in different content domains. Forexample, while the category ‘family’ encompasses a wide rangeof life longings (e.g., having children, living together as a happyfamily), the category ‘finances’ is less comprehensive. Further, be-cause of its cross-sectional design, the present study can only givelimited information about age-related trajectories of life longings.Age group differences might be confounded with cohort effects.For instance, the result that older participants reported most fam-ily-related life longings may reflect their frequent loss of familymembers in war, rather than an increasing importance of familywith age. Longitudinal studies are necessary to disentangle age-re-lated from cohort-specific influences.

In conclusion, by using data from a relatively large and hetero-geneous sample, the present study provides a comprehensive over-view of the main topics that individuals’ life longings address. Bydemonstrating a relation between life longing contents and basichuman motives as well as developmental tasks and by highlightingpsychological and demographic variables that are associated withthe occurrence of life longings, our study gives insight into thelife-contextual and psychological conditions under which life long-ings emerge in certain content domains and not in others.

Acknowledgments

We thank Paul B. Baltes for initiating and supporting the studiesused in this report, and Sabine Mayser, Dulce Erdt, Annette Brose,Annette Rentz-Lühning, Cosima Dorsemagen, and Anna KatharinaLudwig for their help in data collection and coding of life longingdescriptions.

References

Adler, N. E., Boyce, T., Chesney, M. A., Cohen, S., Folkman, S., Kahn, R. L., et al. (1994).Socioeconomic status and health: The challenge of the gradient. AmericanPsychologist, 49, 15–24.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpretinginteractions. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. An essay on psychology and religion.Oxford, England: Rand McNally.

Baltes, P. B. (2008). Entwurf einer Lebensspannen-Psychologie der Sehnsucht:Utopie eines vollkommenen und perfekten Lebens [A lifespan psychological

approach to the study of Sehnsucht (life longings): Utopia of a perfect andcomplete life]. Psychologische Rundschau, 59, 77–86.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonalattachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117,497–529.

Boesch, E. E. (1998). Sehnsucht: Von der Suche nach Glück und Sinn (Longing: About thesearch for happiness and meaning). Bern, Switzerland: Huber.

Brandtstädter, J. (2006). Action perspectives on human development. In Handbookof child psychology (6th ed.. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.). Theoretical models of humandevelopment (Vol. 1, pp. 516–568). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Cantor, N. (1994). Life task problem solving: Situational affordances and personalneeds. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 235–243.

Carstensen, L. L. (2006). The influence of a sense of time on human development.Science, 312, 1913–1915.

Costa, P. T., Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences inpersonality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 81, 322–331.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘‘what” and ‘‘why” of goal pursuit: Humanneeds and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11,227–268.

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior:Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423.

Ebner, N. C., Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. (2006). Developmental changes in personalgoal orientation from young to late adulthood: From striving for gains tomaintenance and prevention of losses. Psychology and Aging, 21, 664–678.

Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York, NY: Norton.Filipp, S.-H., & Ferring, D. (1991). Zur inhaltlichen Bestimmung und Erfassung von

Lebensqualität im Umfeld schwerer körperlicher Erkrankungen (On theconceptualization and measurement of quality of life in the context of severephysical illness). Praxis der Klinischen Verhaltensmedizin und Rehabilitation, 16,274–283.

Gollwitzer, P. M., & Bargh, J. A. (Eds.). (1996). The psychology of action: Linkingcognition and motivation to behavior. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Havighurst, R. J. (1972). Developmental tasks and education. New York, NY: D. McKay.Heckhausen, J., Wrosch, C., & Fleeson, W. (2001). Developmental regulation before

and after a developmental deadline: The sample case of ‘‘biological clock” forchildbearing. Psychology and Aging, 16, 400–413.

Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60,581–592.

Kim, J. E., & Moen, P. (2002). Moving into retirement: Preparation and transitions inlate midlife. In M. E. Lachman (Ed.), Handbook of midlife development(pp. 487–527). New York, NY: Wiley.

King, L. A., & Broyles, S. J. (1997). Wishes, gender, personality, and well-being.Journal of Personality, 65, 49–76.

King, L. A., & Napa, C. K. (1998). What makes a life good? Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 75, 156–165.

Kotter-Grühn, D., Scheibe, S., Blanchard-Fields, F., & Baltes, P. B. (submitted forpublication). Developmental emergence and functionality of Sehnsucht (lifelongings): The sample case of involuntary childlessness in middle-aged women.

Lachman, M. E., & Weaver, S. L. (1998). The sense of control as a moderator of socialclass differences in health and well-being. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 74, 763–773.

Marmot, M. G., Smith, G. D., Stansfeld, S., Patel, C., North, F., Head, J., et al. (1991).Health inequalities among British civil servants: The Whitehall II study. TheLancet, 337, 1387–1393.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.Mayser, S., Scheibe, S., & Riediger, M. (2008). (Un)reachable? An empirical

differentiation of goals and life longings. European Psychologist, 13, 126–140.McClelland, D. C. (1987). Human motivation. New York, NY: Cambridge University

Press.Morling, B., & Evered, S. (2006). Secondary control reviewed and defined.

Psychological Bulletin, 132, 269–296.Nurmi, J.-E. (1992). Age differences in adult life goals, concerns, and their temporal

extension: A life course approach to future-oriented motivation. InternationalJournal of Behavioral Development, 15, 487–508.

Ranchor, A. V., Bouma, J., & Sanderman, R. (1996). Vulnerability and social class:Differential patterns of personality and social support over the social class.Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 229–237.

Repetti, R. L., Taylor, S. E., & Seeman, T. E. (2002). Risky families: Family socialenvironments and the mental and physical health of offspring. PsychologicalBulletin, 128, 330–366.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation ofintrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,55, 68–78.

Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning ofpsychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,1069–1081.

Scheibe, S., & Freund, A. M. (2008). Approaching Sehnsucht (life longings) from alife-span perspective: The role of personal utopias in development. Research inHuman Development, 5, 121–133.

Scheibe, S., Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. (2007). Toward a developmental psychologyof Sehnsucht (life longings): The optimal (utopian) life. Developmentalpsychology, 43, 778–795.

Scheibe, S., Freund, A. M., & Blanchard-Fields, F. (submitted for publication). What isnew about Sehnsucht? Differentiating Sehnsucht (life longings) from goals, theideal self, and regret in layperson’s conceptions and personal experience.

D. Kotter-Grühn et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 43 (2009) 428–437 437

Scheibe, S., Kunzmann, U., & Baltes, P. B. (in press). New territories of positivelifespan development: Wisdom and life longings. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez(Eds.), Handbook of Positive Psychology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.

Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can’t a man be more likea woman? Sex differences in big five personality traits across 55 cultures.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 168–182.

Settersten, R. A., Jr., & Hägestad, G. O. (1996). What’s the latest? Cultural agedeadlines for family transitions. The Gerontologist, 36, 178–188.

Steinhagen-Thiessen, E., & Borchelt, M. (1999). Morbidity, medication, andfunctional limitations in very old age. In P. B. Baltes & K. U. Mayer (Eds.), TheBerlin aging study: Aging from 70 to 100 (pp. 131–166). New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.

Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2003). To do or to have? That is the question. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 85, 1193–1202.

Wrosch, C., & Heckhausen, J. (1999). Control processes before and afterpassing a developmental deadline: Activation and deactivation of intimaterelationship goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77,415–427.

Wrosch, C., & Heckhausen, J. (2005). Being on-time or off-time: Developmentaldeadlines for regulating one’s own development. In A.-N. Perrez-Clermont (Ed.),Thinking time: The multidisciplinary perspective on time (pp. 110–123). Ashland,OH: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.

Zarit, S. H., & Eggebeen, D. J. (2002). Parent–child relationships in adulthood andlater years (2nd ed.. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.). Handbook of parenting (Vol. 1,pp. 135–161). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.