A Comparison of Meaning in Life in Younger and Older Persons

8/11/2019 A Comparison of Meaning in Life in Younger and Older Persons

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-comparison-of-meaning-in-life-in-younger-and-older-persons 1/23

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: 29th 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 individual‟s

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

individual‟s 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 Pearson‟s 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 Spearman‟s 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.

Youngest

(18-25)

Oldest

(58-65)

Male Female Male Female

LRI-Overall Scores 125 198 84 83

DOC Average Scores 123 198 84 164

Relationships 50 100 31 83

Lifework 19 37 13 24

Personal Well-being 13 14 17 24

Self-actualization 21 11 6 6

Service 7 61 7 7

Beliefs 6 22 2 11

Materiality 1 5 2 3

Miscellaneous 8 3 6 6

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 individual‟s

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), Prager‟s (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 individual‟s commitment to

meaning in life is associated positively to an individual‟s 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.Don‟t

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 toaccomplish 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 I‟m 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 knowthat 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

Life Regard Index syntax to create Fulfilment and Framework subscales:

Fulfilment (emotive) _ 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22 & 26-reverse-coded

Framework (cognitive) _ 1, 2, 5, 7, 11, 14, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27 & 28



14

Appendix C

Meaning in Life Categories, Description and Code

(Taken f rom Debats, 1999)

Main Category/Subcategory Description Code

Relationships Commitment to family, partner/lover or friends 1

Lifework Meaning through engagement in one‟s 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_Categoriesa 108 100.0% 0 .0% 108 100.0%

58-65 years $Meaning_of_Life_Categoriesa 84 98.8% 1 1.2% 85 100.0%

a. Group

$Meaning_of_Life_Categories Frequencies age recoded Responses

Percent of CasesN Percent

18-25 years $Meaning_of_Life_Categoriesa 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%




service 14 5.6% 16.7%


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 Percent18-25 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

Percent18-25 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 (con‟t)

Frequency Statistics for Demographic Details for Younger and Older Participants (con‟t)

Paid Employment Status

age recoded


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


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


Frequency Statistics for Demographic Details for Younger and Older Participants (con‟t)

Status of Quality Support

age recoded


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


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

CasesN Percent

18-25 years male $Meaning_of_Life_Categoriesa relationships 50 40.0% 119.0%

beliefs 6 4.8% 14.3%

lifework 19 15.2% 45.2%

materiality 1 .8% 2.4%



service 7 5.6% 16.7%


Total 125 100.0% 297.6%

female $Meaning_of_Life_Categoriesa relationships 100 50.5% 151.5%

beliefs 22 11.1% 33.3%

lifework 37 18.7% 56.1%




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_Categoriesa relationships 31 36.9% 106.9%

beliefs 2 2.4% 6.9%

lifework 13 15.5% 44.8%




service 7 8.3% 24.1%


Total 84 100.0% 289.7%

female $Meaning_of_Life_Categoriesa relationships 83 50.6% 150.9%

beliefs 11 6.7% 20.0%

lifework 24 14.6% 43.6%


personal well-

being

24 14.6% 43.6%


service 7 4.3% 12.7%


Total 164 100.0% 298.2%

a. Group



20


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

CasesN Percent

18-25 years male $Degree_of_Commitment

_Gendera

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

_Gendera

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

_Gendera

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

_Gendera

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 UpperLife 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


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


average score

Correlation Coefficient .219**

1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .

N 195 195

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Documents

A Comparison of Meaning in Life in Younger and Older Persons