This study explored the relationships between younger and older individuals, their sources of meaning in life, commitment to the meaning associated to degree of meaning they experience and difference in how this is experienced. 108 young individuals, aged between 18 and 25, and 85 older individuals, aged between 58 and 65 years made up the sample. Participants provided three sources of meaning, rated each source to the degree of commitment (DOC) and completed the Life Regard Index (LRI). Comparing LRI scores to DOC scores measured the degree of commitment experienced. LRI-overall scores measured differences between age groups for experiences of meaning in life. As expected, variance between age groups for sources of meaning was limited, except for personal well-being and self-actualization. Relationships were the greatest source of meaning. Older individuals experience more meaning. Strong positive relationships were experienced between commitment to meaning and the degree in meaning.
This study explored the relationships between younger and older individuals, their sources of meaning in life, commitment to the meaning associated to degree of meaning they experience and difference in how this is experienced. 108 young individuals, aged between 18 and 25, and 85 older individuals, aged between 58 and 65 years made up the sample. Participants provided three sources of meaning, rated each source to the degree of commitment (DOC) and completed the Life Regard Index (LRI). Comparing LRI scores to DOC scores measured the degree of commitment experienced. LRI-overall scores measured differences between age groups for experiences of meaning in life. As expected, variance between age groups for sources of meaning was limited, except for personal well-being and self-actualization. Relationships were the greatest source of meaning. Older individuals experience more meaning. Strong positive relationships were experienced between commitment to meaning and the degree in meaning.
This study explored the relationships between younger and older individuals, their sources of meaning in life, commitment to the meaning associated to degree of meaning they experience and difference in how this is experienced. 108 young individuals, aged between 18 and 25, and 85 older individuals, aged between 58 and 65 years made up the sample. Participants provided three sources of meaning, rated each source to the degree of commitment (DOC) and completed the Life Regard Index (LRI). Comparing LRI scores to DOC scores measured the degree of commitment experienced. LRI-overall scores measured differences between age groups for experiences of meaning in life. As expected, variance between age groups for sources of meaning was limited, except for personal well-being and self-actualization. Relationships were the greatest source of meaning. Older individuals experience more meaning. Strong positive relationships were experienced between commitment to meaning and the degree in meaning.
A comparison of meaning in life in terms of source, commitment, and degree of
meaning in younger and older persons: a qualitative and quantitative study
Helen Carmichael Monash University
Unit code: PSY3120 Date: 29 th April 2011 Tutor: Dr. Tom Whelan Lab class: Distance Education Word Count: 2,073 words
Abstract This study explored the relationships between younger and older individuals, their sources of meaning in life, commitment to the meaning associated to degree of meaning they experience and difference in how this is experienced. 108 young individuals, aged between 18 and 25, and 85 older individuals, aged between 58 and 65 years made up the sample. Participants provided three sources of meaning, rated each source to the degree of commitment (DOC) and completed the Life Regard Index (LRI). Comparing LRI scores to DOC scores measured the degree of commitment experienced. LRI-overall scores measured differences between age groups for experiences of meaning in life. As expected, variance between age groups for sources of meaning was limited, except for personal well-being and self-actualization. Relationships were the greatest source of meaning. Older individuals experience more meaning. Strong positive relationships were experienced between commitment to meaning and the degree in meaning. 2
The subject of meaning in life has gained interest from psychologists and empirical literature in the last two decades (Debats, 1999; Frankl, 1997; 1967; Reker & Fry, 2003), but empirical research is limited (Debats, 1990). Integrating empirical and theoretical approaches has been arduous (Reker & Fry, 2003) and according to Debats (1993) the main difficulty is the diversity of theories of how meaning can be developed, concurring that psychological well-being needs to have a sense of meaningfulness. Frankl (1997; 1967) defined that meaningfulness as, a person searching for meaning to their existence, this becomes their primary motivation in life. Operationalising the construct of personal meaning has been problematic (Debats, 1988; Frankl, 1969; Reker, 2005; Steger, Frazier, Oishi, & Kaler, 2006). Battista and Almond (1973) developed an integrative framework, the Life Regard Index (LRI) to measure meaning in life, by measuring positive life regard, defined as an individuals belief that he is fulfilling a life-framework or life-goal that provides him with a highly valued understanding of his life (Battista & Almond, 1973, p. 410). This measures positive life regard over two subscales: Framework (LRI-FR), the cognitive component, life perspective and life- goals and related activities, and Fulfilment (LRI-FU), the emotive component, that measure the degree of achieving and fulfilling their personal meaningfulness (Debats, et al., 1993; Scannell, Allen, & Burton, 2002). According to Debats (1988), the LRI is becoming a promising instrument to measure personal meaning due to its integration and acknowledgement that personal meaning is not identical for everyone. Some research has shown hesitation towards its reliability across cultures, gender and ages (Scannell, et al., 2002; Stegar, 2007; Van Ranst & Marcoen, 1997). Of particular interest to the current investigation is the source of personal meaning in life between younger and older people. If, as Buhler (1969) five schematical phases for the development of self-realization and life goals across the life-span suggest, then it is during adolescence and early adulthood people expand and become aware of life and the pursuit of 3
goals, becoming more specific and definite as they age. Later in adulthood, fifties and sixties, individuals begin to assess their life on a whole, their achievement of life-goals, successes and failures and how fulfilled they are. Previous studies have resulted in unclear results (Debats, 1988; Scannell, et al., 2002), however, relationships have been reported as the most important for across age groups (Debats, 1999; Prager, 1996). Several studies have indicated that being older is related to a higher degree of personal meaning in life (Baum & Stewart, 1990; Reker & Fry, 2003; Van Ranst & Marcoen, 1997). Debats (1993) studies revealed younger age groups had significantly lower framework scores, contrary to Scannell and colleagues (2002), indicating that meaning in life, cognitive life- goals develop as people age and that meaning for younger people is not about defining goals, but about experiencing fulfilment in what feels meaningful. The object of this present study is to use qualitative and quantitative research methods, to investigate if their were differences in individuals specific sources of meaning (SOM) in life experienced between younger and older people, through classifying SOM into Debats (1999) eight meaning of life categories. Secondly, investigate if older people experience more meaning in life than younger people do, by comparing LRI-Overall scores. Finally, commitment to an individuals personal meaning and associations to the actual degree in meaning experienced, were investigations into by comparing the average degree of commitment (DOC) in SOM scores to LRI-Overall scores. It was not a primary investigation of this study, gender differences were explored for possible associations along with other demographic patterns across all investigations. It was predicted limited differences in frequencies for the meaning in life categories between of younger and older individuals. That relationships would rate as the highest source of meaning in life, and that older individuals would exhibit higher levels of meaningful 4
commitment in high LRI-Overall scores than younger individuals. Lastly, it was hypothesised that the average commitment ratings (DOC) for individuals would have little variance and be consistent with their degree of meaning experienced as indicated by their LRI-Overall scores. Method Participants The research comprised of two samples, 108 young participants (42 male and 66 female), aged between 18 to 25 years, and 85 older participants (29 male and 56 female), aged between 58 to 65 years. University students who conducted the study as part of their requirements to fulfil their psychology course commitments selected the participants opportunistically. Participants were familiar with the purpose of the study. Materials An introductory letter of the study and a three-part questionnaire, Part one consisted of basic demographic details, gender, age, relationship status, highest educational level attained, employment and volunteer status, presence of social networks and commitment of religion, as presented in Appendix A. Part two consisted of the Debats (1988) Meaning if Life Questionnaire based on Battista & Almond (1973) Life Regard Index (LRI), refer to Appendix B for full set of the 28-item questionnaire. The LRI is composed of two subscales, framework (LRI-FR) and fulfilment (LRI- FU) and an overall scale (LRI-Overall). The Fulfilment scale measured the extent to which persons emotively believe they are fulfilling their life goals. The Framework scale measured the extent to which people believe they have meaningfully defined their life goals (Battista & Almond, 1973; Debats, 1988). Part three consists of the Sources of Meaning (SOM) questionnaire, in which participants 5
indicated their three most important sources of meaning to their present lives and rated them according to their degree of commitment to each, on a 5-point Likert scale. These meanings were coded according to Debats (1999) eight meaning of life categories, presented in Appendix C. Participants were asked to indicate their degree of commitment to each of theses sources of meaning, along a 5-point scale, with one representing no significant commitment and fire representing much significant commitment. Each participant overall degree of commitment (DOC) was the average of the three ratings. Procedure Each participant completed the three-part questionnaire without time frames and returned the completed papers to the researcher. Results All raw data was analysed using PASW Statistics 18 Software. The younger sample mean age was 21.18 years (SD = 1.77, range = 18 to 25) and the older sample mean age was 60.2 years (SD = 2.34, range = 58 to 65). As can be seen in Figure 1, the relationship category was indeed the most frequent sources in meaning across both age groups and that as predicted there were limited variances in each category between age groups. However, older participants more frequently mentioned development goals as sources of personal meanings in the category personal well-being. Younger participants express significantly more individual orientation and appreciation of life as sources of personal meanings belonging to self-actualization. Participants in both samples expressed limited sources of personal meanings belonging to the category of materiality, the pursuit of materialist objects and gratification. Uncategorised sources of personal meaning, classified as miscellaneous produced relatively high scores across both age groups, indicating 6
0 10 20 30 40 50 Relationships Lifework Beliefs Materiality Personal well-being Self-actualisation Service Miscellaneous Frequency Proportion of Total Number of Meanings 58-65 years 18-25 years possible categorisation problems, full frequency details are presented in Appendix D. Figure 1. Frequencies for the Meaning in Life Categories for Younger and Older Persons.
An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare M LRI-Overall scores of participants in the older and younger age groups. As predicted, there was a significant difference in scores for older participants (M =72.00, SD =10.23) and younger participants (M =67.50, SD =10.93); t (191) = 2.92, p <.05, r 2 = .99, which implies a large effect. Indicating that younger and older participants differed significantly, matching our prediction that older participants experienced more meaning in life than younger participants. Full statistical results are presented in Appendix G for LRI-FU (fulfilment), LRI-FR (framework) and LRI-Overall (totals). Participants completing the Meaning in Life questionnaire to test the third prediction, producing their overall LRI score (lritotal). They rated their degree of commitment to each SOM, creating the sum average score of participants three separate degree of commitment (DOC) rating scores (comav). A Pearsons correlation was performed accessing if commitment to meaning (DOC), measured by average commitment scores (comav) is associated with the degree of meaning (LRI-Overall) experienced. This revealed that they were positively related, r 7
=.24, n =195, p<.01. But the data was highly skewed, so a Spearmans correlation was conducted. This confirmed the previous results, revealing a positive correlation between the two variables, r =.22, n =195, p<.01, full results and scatter plot are presented in Appendix H. These findings confirm the third prediction, exhibiting that participants degrees of commitment to their personal sources of meanings in life are closely related to their degrees of meaningfulness experienced in life. To determine if measured outcomes were related to participants demographic variables presented in Appendix E, patterns were investigated. Both age groups were consistent, with limited differences in support networks, employment and education level. However, relationships status was significantly different, with 88% younger participants being single and 67.18% older participants being in a relationship. In turn, we only investigated the effects of genders with particular interest in relationships with the resulted presented in Table 1, derived from statistical data presented in Appendix F. Table 1 Gender Frequencies for LRI-Overall, DOC and each SOM categories across each age group.
There were many significant differences between genders in and across each age groups 8
category. Relationships in particular had more females consistently reporting higher sources of meanings than males in both age groups. Interestingly, females within the younger age group recorded higher sources of personal meaning to altruistic service. In both age groups, males and females significantly differed regarding their average degree of commitment scores, with females on the higher scale. However, only younger females were significantly different in their LRI-Overall scores. Self-actualization was the only source of meaning category, which showed males reporting higher scores. It was concluded that gender is playing a role in affecting outcome variables. Discussion The main aim of this study was to explore the relationship between younger and older individuals. We expected to see limited differences between specific sources of personal meaning in life between each age group and that older individuals would experience more meaning in their lives than younger individuals. We also expected that an individuals commitment to their source of meaning in life would be related to the degree they experienced meaningfulness in life. Our findings supported that there were minor differences between sources of meaning in life categories, with two major differences, personnel well-being, and self-actualisation and having relationships as the strongest sources of meaning in life. These results are consistent with previous research (Debats, 1988; Prager, 1996). Our results showed support for the theoretical framework of Battista and Almond (1973) and Debats (1999)empirical studies that LRI is a reliable measurement of personal meaning in life. Our results indicated that older participants were found to experience more meaning in life than younger participants with a high effect size, in line with Debats (1999) but contrary to Van Ranst and Marcoen (1997), Pragers (1996) and Scannell et. al (2002) research 9
that evaluated the LRI as being unreliable or to be used with caution. Our results support Debats (1993) conclusions that the LRI is a reliable construct for measuring personal meaning in life. The results also support the third prediction that an individuals commitment to meaning in life is associated positively to an individuals degree of meaningfulness they experience. Inline with previous research (Baum & Stewart, 1990; Debats, et al., 1993; Reker & Fry, 2003; Van Ranst & Marcoen, 1997), supporting Buhler (1969) life span theories. Although the investigation of gender differences was not the focus of this study, it was noted the results inconsistent and non-invariant in both age groups. More differences were seen in younger individuals, indicating gender is affecting outcome variables and warranting further investigation. This is contrary to Scannell and colleagues (2002) research. In considering the methodical design structure of the experiment, the collection procedure of the data from participants was a possible weakness. Data return was not in a confidential manner. This could have induced participants to respond to the questions with social desirability and influenced results. In conclusion, these findings point to the relevance of young participants experiencing meaning in life despite not having their desired source of meaning defined, but the degree of commitment to that meaning relates to the meaningfulness they experience. Of particular interest the high degree of altruistic service mentioned by younger participants as a major source of personal meaning, warranting further investigations.
10
References Battista, J., & Almond, R. (1973). The development of meaning in life. Psychiatry, 36(4), 409- 427. Baum, S. K., & Stewart, R. B. J. (1990). Sources of meaning through the lifespan. Psychololgical Reports, 67, 3-14. Buhler, C. (1969). Humanistic psychology as an educational program. American Psychologist, 24(8), 736-742. Debats, D. (1990). The life regard index: Reliability and validity. Psychological Reports, 67, 27- 34. Debats, D. L. (1988). Measurement of personal meaning: The psycholmetric properties of the life regard index. In P. T. P. Wong & P. S. Fry (Eds.), The human quest for meaning: A handbook of psychological research and clinical applications (pp. 237-259). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Debats, D. L. (1999). Sources of meaning: An investigation of significant commitments in life. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 39, 30-57. Debats, D. L., Lubbe, P. M. v. d., & Wezeman, F. R. A. (1993). On the psychometric properties of the life regard index (lri): A measure of meaningful life an evaluation in three independent samples based on the dutch version. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 337-345. Frankl. (1997). Man's search for ultimate meaning. New York, NY, US: Insight Books/Plenum Press. Frankl, V. (1967). Logotherapy and existentialism. Pscychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 4(3), 138-142. Frankl, V. (1969). Self-transcendence as a human phenomenon. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 6, 97-106. 11
Prager, E. (1996). Exploring personal meaning in an age-differenitated australain sample: Another look at the soruces of meaning profile (somp). Journal of Ageing Studies, 10, 117-136. Reker, G. T. (2005). Meaning in life of young, middle-aged, and older adults: Factorial validity, age, and gender invariance of the personal meaning index (pmi). Personality and Individual Differences, 38(1), 71-85. Reker, G. T., & Fry, P. S. (2003). Factor structure and invariance of personal meaning measures in cohorts of younger and older adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 977- 993. Scannell, E. D., Allen, F. C., & Burton, J. (2002). Meaning in life and positive and negative well-being. North American Journal of Psychology, 4, 93-112. Stegar, M. F. (2007). Structural validity of the life regard index. Measurement and Evaluation In Counseling and Development, 40, 97-109. 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 Counselling Psychology, 53(1), 80-93. Van Ranst, N., & Marcoen, A. (1997). Meaning in life of young and elderly adults: An examination of the factorial validity and invariance of the life regard index. Personality and Individual Differences, 22(6), 877-884.
12
Appendix A Demographic Information Gender: Male Female Age in Years ______ Relationship Status: Single Married/Defacto Separated/Divorced Widow/Widower Other (please specify) ________ Highest Level of Education Completed: Primary Secondary Profession/Trade Some Tertiary Tertiary Post Graduate Other (please specify) _________________________________ Are you currently engaged in paid employment? Yes No Are you engaged in volunteer work for more than two hours per month? Yes No Do you have a quality support network (eg., family, friends,, others)? Yes No Would you say you were strongly committed to a religion? Yes No
13
Appendix B The Meaning in Life Questionnaire Please consider each statement in relation to yourself and indicate whether you disagree, agree or have no opinion by circling the number next to the statement. I you neither agree or disagree, or are unsure, you should circle the number 2, under No opinion. Dont Agree No Opinion Agree 1. I feel like I have found a really significant meaning for leading my life. 1 2 3 2. Life is is deeply fulfilling. 1 2 3 3. I really don't have much of a purpose for living, even for myself. 1 2 3 4. There honestly isn't anything that I totally want to do. 1 2 3 5. I really feel good about my life. 1 2 3 6. I spend most of my time doing things that really aren't very important to me. 1 2 3 7. I have really come to terms with what's important for me in my life. 1 2 3 8. I need to find something that I can really be committed to. 1 2 3 9. I just don't know what I really want to do with my life. 1 2 3 10. Other people seem to feel better about their lives than I do. 1 2 3 11. I have some aims and goals that would personally give me a great deal of satisfaction if I could accomplish them. 1 2 3 12. I don't seem to be able to accomplish those things that are really important to me. 1 2 3 13. I really don't believe in anything about my life very deeply. 1 2 3 15. Other people seem to have a much better idea of what they want to do with their lives than I do. 1 2 3 14. I have a philosophy of life that really gives my living significance. 1 2 3 16. I get completely confused when I try to understand my life. 1 2 3 17. Something seems to stop me from doing what I really want to do. 1 2 3 18. I have a lot of potential that I don't normally use. 1 2 3 19. When I look at my life I feel the satisfaction of really having worked to accomplish something. 1 2 3 20. I have real passion in my life. 1 2 3 22. I don't really value what I'm doing. 1 2 3 21. I feel that Im really going to attain what I want in life. 1 2 3 23. I have a very clear idea of what I'd like to do with my life. 1 2 3 24. I get so excited by what I'm doing that I find new stores of energy I didn't know that I had. 1 2 3 25. There are things that I devote all my life's energy to. 1 2 3 27. I feel that I am living fully. 1 2 3 26. Nothing very outstanding ever seems to happen to me. 1 2 3 28. I have a system or framework that allows me to truly understand my being alive. 1 2 3
Appendix C Meaning in Life Categories, Description and Code (Taken from Debats, 1999) Main Category/Subcategory Description Code Relationships Commitment to family, partner/lover or friends 1 Lifework Meaning through engagement in ones job, schooling, or main occupation. 2 Personal well-being An individualist orientation with an emphasis on experiencing meaning through appreciation of life, hedonistically striving for pleasure and maintaining physical or mental health. 3 Self-actualization An orientation toward development and achievement of tangible goals and talents or intangible goals and talents or intangible goals and psychological abilities. 4 Service An altruistic orientation with an emphasis on helping people in general. 5 Beliefs Devotion to or practising religious/spiritual or social/political beliefs 6 Materiality Meaning derived from the pursuit of materialistic objects and gratification. 7 Miscellaneous Statements that do not fit into one of the 7 categories above, e.g., Future/hope, Double meaning, Not coded/equivocal 8 15
Appendix D Frequencies Statistics for Sources of Meaning Categories in Younger and Older Participants
Case Summary age recoded Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent 18-25 years $Meaning_of_Life_Categories a 108 100.0% 0 .0% 108 100.0% 58-65 years $Meaning_of_Life_Categories a 84 98.8% 1 1.2% 85 100.0% a. Group
$Meaning_of_Life_Categories Frequencies age recoded Responses Percent of Cases N Percent 18-25 years $Meaning_of_Life_Categories a relationships 150 46.4% 138.9% lifework 56 17.3% 51.9% beliefs 28 8.7% 25.9% materiality 6 1.9% 5.6% personal well-being 27 8.4% 25.0% self-actualisation 32 9.9% 29.6% service 13 4.0% 12.0% miscellaneous 11 3.4% 10.2% Total 323 100.0% 299.1% 58-65 years $Meaning_of_Life_Categories a relationships 114 46.0% 135.7% lifework 37 14.9% 44.0% beliefs 13 5.2% 15.5% materiality 5 2.0% 6.0% personal well-being 41 16.5% 48.8% self-actualisation 12 4.8% 14.3% service 14 5.6% 16.7% miscellaneous 12 4.8% 14.3% Total 248 100.0% 295.2% a. Group
16
Appendix E Frequency Statistics for Demographic Details for Younger and Older Participants
Age Groups Descriptive Statistics age recoded N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Varianc e 18-25 years age 108 7 18 25 21.18 1.766 3.118 Valid N (listwise) 108 58-65 years age 85 7 58 65 60.20 2.339 5.471 Valid N (listwise) 85
age recoded Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 18-25 years 108 55.1 56.0 56.0 58-65 years 85 43.4 44.0 100.0 Total 193 98.5 100.0 Missing System 3 1.5 Total 196 100.0
Gender age recoded Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 18-25 years Valid male 42 38.9 38.9 38.9 female 66 61.1 61.1 100.0 Total 108 100.0 100.0 58-65 years Valid male 29 34.1 34.1 34.1 female 56 65.9 65.9 100.0 Total 85 100.0 100.0
Relationship Status age recoded Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 18-25 years Valid single 95 88.0 88.0 88.0 married/defacto 7 6.5 6.5 94.4 other 6 5.6 5.6 100.0 Total 108 100.0 100.0 58-65 years Valid single 1 1.2 1.2 1.2 married/defacto 57 67.1 67.1 68.2 separated/divorced 20 23.5 23.5 91.8 widow/widower 7 8.2 8.2 100.0 Total 85 100.0 100.0
17
Appendix E (cont) Frequency Statistics for Demographic Details for Younger and Older Participants (cont)
Paid Employment Status age recoded Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 18-25 years Valid yes 75 69.4 69.4 69.4 no 33 30.6 30.6 100.0 Total 108 100.0 100.0 58-65 years Valid yes 58 68.2 68.2 68.2 no 27 31.8 31.8 100.0 Total 85 100.0 100.0
Education Level Attained age recoded Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 18-25 years Valid secondary 25 23.1 23.1 23.1 profession/trade 1 .9 .9 24.1 some tertiary 39 36.1 36.1 60.2 tertiary 36 33.3 33.3 93.5 postgraduate 7 6.5 6.5 100.0 Total 108 100.0 100.0 58-65 years Valid primary 1 1.2 1.2 1.2 secondary 26 30.6 30.6 31.8 profession/trade 12 14.1 14.1 45.9 some tertiary 9 10.6 10.6 56.5 tertiary 24 28.2 28.2 84.7 postgraduate 12 14.1 14.1 98.8 other 1 1.2 1.2 100.0 Total 85 100.0 100.0
Volunteer Status of Two Hours or More Per Month age recoded Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 18-25 years Valid yes 18 16.7 16.7 16.7 no 90 83.3 83.3 100.0 Total 108 100.0 100.0 58-65 years Valid yes 26 30.6 30.6 30.6 no 59 69.4 69.4 100.0 Total 85 100.0 100.0
18
Appendix E (cont) Frequency Statistics for Demographic Details for Younger and Older Participants (cont)
Status of Quality Support age recoded Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 18-25 years Valid yes 106 98.1 98.1 98.1 no 2 1.9 1.9 100.0 Total 108 100.0 100.0 58-65 years Valid yes 83 97.6 97.6 97.6 no 2 2.4 2.4 100.0 Total 85 100.0 100.0
Status of Strong Commitment to Religion/Politics age recoded Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 18-25 years Valid yes 41 38.0 38.0 38.0 no 67 62.0 62.0 100.0 Total 108 100.0 100.0 58-65 years Valid yes 33 38.8 38.8 38.8 no 52 61.2 61.2 100.0 Total 85 100.0 100.0
19
Appendix E Frequency Statistics for Gender for Younger and Older Participants in LRI-Overall Scores, DOC Average Scores and for Each SOM Category
Frequency Statistics for Gender and Age in Meaning of Life Categories Frequencies age recoded gender Responses Percent of Cases N Percent d i m e n s i o n 0 18-25 years male $Meaning_of_Life_Categories a relationships 50 40.0% 119.0% beliefs 6 4.8% 14.3% lifework 19 15.2% 45.2% materiality 1 .8% 2.4% personal well-being 13 10.4% 31.0% self-actualisation 21 16.8% 50.0% service 7 5.6% 16.7% miscellaneous 8 6.4% 19.0% Total 125 100.0% 297.6% female $Meaning_of_Life_Categories a relationships 100 50.5% 151.5% beliefs 22 11.1% 33.3% lifework 37 18.7% 56.1% materiality 5 2.5% 7.6% personal well-being 14 7.1% 21.2% self-actualisation 11 5.6% 16.7% service 6 3.0% 9.1% miscellaneous 3 1.5% 4.5% Total 198 100.0% 300.0% 58-65 years male $Meaning_of_Life_Categories a relationships 31 36.9% 106.9% beliefs 2 2.4% 6.9% lifework 13 15.5% 44.8% materiality 2 2.4% 6.9% personal well-being 17 20.2% 58.6% self-actualisation 6 7.1% 20.7% service 7 8.3% 24.1% miscellaneous 6 7.1% 20.7% Total 84 100.0% 289.7% female $Meaning_of_Life_Categories a relationships 83 50.6% 150.9% beliefs 11 6.7% 20.0% lifework 24 14.6% 43.6% materiality 3 1.8% 5.5% personal well- being 24 14.6% 43.6% self-actualisation 6 3.7% 10.9% service 7 4.3% 12.7% miscellaneous 6 3.7% 10.9% Total 164 100.0% 298.2% a. Group
20
Appendix E (cont) Frequency Statistics for Gender for Younger and Older Participants in DOC Average Scores Frequency Degree of Commitment Gender Frequencies age recoded gender Responses Percent of Cases N Percent d i m e n s i o n 0 18-25 years male $Degree_of_Commitment _Gender a
4 47 38.2% 111.9% much significant commitment 62 50.4% 147.6% 2 3 2.4% 7.1% 3 11 8.9% 26.2% Total 123 100.0% 292.9% female $Degree_of_Commitment _Gender a
4 63 31.8% 95.5% much significant commitment 115 58.1% 174.2% 2 3 1.5% 4.5% 3 15 7.6% 22.7% no significant commitment 2 1.0% 3.0% Total 198 100.0% 300.0% 58-65 years male $Degree_of_Commitment _Gender a
4 30 35.7% 103.4% much significant commitment 44 52.4% 151.7% 2 1 1.2% 3.4% 3 8 9.5% 27.6% no significant commitment 1 1.2% 3.4% Total 84 100.0% 289.7% female $Degree_of_Commitment _Gender a
4 36 22.0% 65.5% much significant commitment 111 67.7% 201.8% 3 17 10.4% 30.9% Total 164 100.0% 298.2% a. Group
21
Appendix G Independent t-test comparing Mean Life Regard Index (LRI) Overall Scores of Participants in the Younger and Older Age Groups
Group Statistics
age recoded N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Life Regard Index total score
18-25 years 108 67.50 10.925 1.051 58-65 years 85 72.00 10.225 1.109 Life Regard Index Frame
18-25 years 108 34.13 5.597 .539 58-65 years 85 37.04 4.750 .515 Life Regard Index Fulfilment
18-25 years 108 33.37 6.086 .586 58-65 years 85 34.96 6.252 .678
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means F Sig. t df Sig. (2- tailed) Mean Differen ce Std. Error Differen ce 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Life Regard Index total score Equal variances assumed 2.762 .098 -2.922 191 .004 -4.500 1.540 -7.538 -1.462 Equal variances not assumed
-2.945 185. 315 .004 -4.500 1.528 -7.515 -1.485 Life Regard Index Frame Equal variances assumed 6.597 .011 -3.823 191 .000 -2.906 .760 -4.405 -1.407 Equal variances not assumed
-3.899 189. 888 .000 -2.906 .745 -4.376 -1.436 Life Regard Index Fulfilment Equal variances assumed .337 .562 -1.785 191 .076 -1.594 .893 -3.356 .167 Equal variances not assumed
-1.779 178. 209 .077 -1.594 .896 -3.362 .174
22
Appendix H Correlation between Mean Commitment Scores and Life Regard Index (LRI) Overall Scores
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Life Regard Index total score 69.48 10.883 196 Degree of Commitment average score 4.4548 .51942 195
Correlations Life Regard Index total score Degree of Commitment average score Life Regard Index total score Pearson Correlation 1 .238 **
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 N 196 195 Degree of Commitment average score Pearson Correlation .238 ** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .001 N 195 195 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Correlations Life Regard Index total score Degree of Commitment average score Spearman's rho Life Regard Index total score Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .219 **
Sig. (2-tailed) . .002 N 196 195 Degree of Commitment average score Correlation Coefficient .219 ** 1.000 Sig. (2-tailed) .002 . N 195 195 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
A Comparison of Meaning in Life in Terms of Source, Commitment, and Degree of Meaning in Younger and Older Persons: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study