This article was downloaded by: [Dicle University]

On: 14 November 2014, At: 00:51

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Positive Psychology: Dedicated to

furthering research and promoting good practice
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpos20

The mind’s eye: A photographic method for

understanding meaning in people’s lives
ab a a a a
Michael F. Steger , Yerin Shim , Brenna R. Rush , Libby A. Brueske , Joo Yeon Shin & Leslie
a
A. Merriman
a
Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA;
b
North-West University, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa
Published online: 13 Sep 2013.

To cite this article: Michael F. Steger, Yerin Shim, Brenna R. Rush, Libby A. Brueske, Joo Yeon Shin & Leslie
A. Merriman (2013) The mind’s eye: A photographic method for understanding meaning in people’s lives, The
Journal of Positive Psychology: Dedicated to furthering research and promoting good practice, 8:6, 530-542, DOI:
10.1080/17439760.2013.830760

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.830760

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2013
Vol. 8, No. 6, 530–542, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.830760

The mind’s eye: A photographic method for understanding meaning in people’s lives
Michael F. Stegera,b*, Yerin Shima, Brenna R. Rusha, Libby A. Brueskea, Joo Yeon Shina and Leslie A. Merrimana
a
Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA; bNorth-West University, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa
(Received 13 April 2012; accepted 24 July 2013)

Although research relying on self-report inventories has built an increased appreciation of the importance of meaning in
life, such research has strayed somewhat from the original promise of meaning in life research, which was to shed light
on the individual experience of meaning. Some research has focused on understanding people’s sources of meaning.
However, previous methods have relied on verbal ways of assessing sources of meaning in life. In recognition of the fact
that not everyone has highly developed verbal skills – and that even those who do can find it hard to articulate what life
means – we offer a new method for understanding individuals’ experiences with meaning in life. In this article, we
describe the use of photography to elicit information about people’s sources of meaning and provide inductive qualitative
Downloaded by [Dicle University] at 00:51 14 November 2014

analysis of a pilot study using this method. Photography holds great potential as a new method for seeing meaning
through another’s eyes.
Keywords: meaning; purpose

Several decades of research have created a rich land-
scape of knowledge about meaning in life. Research on
meaning in life covers a wide range of topics and has
focused on many different dimensions along which peo-
ple are thought to experience meaning. Most of this
research has investigated people’s subjective sense of the
amount of meaning in their lives. In our research, we
have referred to this dimension as the presence of mean-
ing and have distinguished it from people’s efforts and
interest in establishing and/or augmenting their experi-
ence of meaning in life, which the field has referred to
as ‘will for meaning’ or ‘search for meaning’ (e.g.
Frankl, 1963; Maddi, 1970). Research on search for
meaning is in an early stage. However, research on the
presence of meaning is fairly mature, dating back to
Crumbaugh and Maholick’s (1964) publication of the
Purpose in Life Test in the 1960s. Subsequent research
has used a large number of tools like the Purpose in Life
Test, meaning that most of what we know about mean-
ing in life relies on the use of self-report questionnaires.
By using self-report questionnaires, we have learned a
great deal about the role of meaning in human function-
ing. At the same time, meaning in life is intuitively a
personal, phenomenological pillar of human experience.
The question of whether having more or less meaning is
important is exciting, but an equally fascinating question
has – more or less – been left by the wayside: ‘How
does one individual person answer the question of his or
her individual meaning in life?’ In this paper, we
describe and present initial results from a new method
for asking this sort of question about meaning in life.
Broadly speaking, meaning in life is an indicator of
psychological and spiritual well-being, psychological
strengths, and positive development (Ryff, 1989; Steger
2009, 2012). Research has documented associations
with happiness (Ryff & Keyes, 1995; Steger, Oishi, &
Kashdan, 2009), a more positive affect balance (Steger
& Frazier, 2005), and life satisfaction (Keyes, Shmotkin,
& Ryff, 2002; Steger, Frazier, Oishi, & Kaler, 2006;
Steger & Kashdan, 2007; Steger, Kashdan, Sullivan, &
Lorentz, 2008). Meaning also appears to facilitate more
adaptive coping and better adjustment following stress
(Park & Folkman, 1997; Thompson, Coker, Krause, &
Henry, 2003). Research also links deficits in meaning
with a greater likelihood of experiencing psychological
distress, such as PTSD symptoms (Owens, Steger,
Whitesell, & Herrerra, 2009; Steger, Frazier, & Zaccha-
nini, 2008) and depression (Steger et al., 2006; Steger &
Kashdan, 2009).
While we know a lot about the general status and
outcome of believing one’s life is meaningful or meaning-
less, we generally are lacking a richer understanding of
what it means for someone to say, ‘yes, my life is mean-
ingful!’ Research on sources of meaning helps us under-
stand where people tend to naturally find meaning, and, in
turn, what they really mean by saying that life is meaning-
ful to them. Sources of meaning refer to the specific
aspects and domains of life that people say they find
meaningful or say that they use as a resource from which
to draw meaning. Some meaning in life theorists have
argued that it is ideal for people to draw meaning from
many sources (known as meaning in life breadth) and to

*Corresponding author. Email: michael.f.steger@colostate.edu.

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

 The Journal of Positive Psychology
find that the relative contribution of each source of
meaning is similar (known as meaning in life balance)
(Wong, 2012). Researchers have used qualitative, mixed-
method, and quantitative/sources of meaning measurement
approaches to identify where meaning in life comes from.
Qualitative approaches
Although early meaning in life questionnaires often
included sections that requested participants to provide
short responses about their sources of meaning (e.g.
Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1964), there is a certain level
of dedication required to engage in qualitative research
of this sort and such sections were almost invariably dis-
carded from studies. By any account, the most successful
qualitative research effort on sources of meaning was led
by Ebersole, using his Meaning in Life Depth approach.
Downloaded by [Dicle University] at 00:51 14 November 2014
In this approach, participants were asked to discuss what
made their lives meaningful. Responses were interpreted
using Battista and Almond’s (1973) six life orientations
(interpersonal, service, understanding, obtaining,
expressive, and ethical). Over the course of several
studies, Ebersole and colleagues investigated sources of
meaning in several different populations, including
young children (Taylor & Ebersole, 1993), young adoles-
cents (DeVogler & Ebersole, 1983), college students
(DeVogler & Ebersole, 1980; Ebersole & DeVogler,
1981), adults (DeVogler & Ebersole, 1981), elderly
nursing home residents (DePaola & Ebersole, 1995),
later life couples (Ebersole & DePaola, 1987), active and
married elderly adults (Ebersole & DePaola, 1989). They
even extended their method to written works of eminent
people (Ebersole & DeVogler-Ebersole, 1986).
In the study that established their method, DeVogler
and Ebersole (1980) asked college students to write
about the three most meaningful things in their lives and
rank the importance of those written meanings. They
derived eight categories from the essays which showed
adequate inter-rater reliability: (i) Relationships; (ii)
Service; (iii) Growth; (iv) Belief; (v) Existential-Hedonis-
tic; (vi) Obtaining; (vii) Expression; and (viii) Under-
standing. To validate this categorization, they conducted
another study with a college student sample, but this
time asking them to write an essay about, and provide
an example of one strongest meaning in their life (Eber-
sole & DeVogler, 1981).
As this method was used in samples other than
college students, differences in the categories of meaning
in life began to appear. Research with an older sample
of adults (30–80 years old) prompted the addition of two
more categories, ‘Health’ and ‘Life Work’ (DeVogler &
Ebersole, 1981), and a study conducted with adolescents
generated three more categories: ‘Activities,’ ‘School,’
and ‘Appearance’ (DeVogler & Ebersole, 1983). These
differences were considered to be somewhat minor in the
531
face of a broader pattern of sources of meaning, which
were said to converge on the following eight categories:
(i) Relationships; (ii) Service; (iii) Belief; (iv) Obtaining;
(v) Growth; (vi) Health; (vii) Life Work; and (viii)
Pleasure (Ebersole, 1998).
Other researchers used their own approaches to try to
identify people’s sources of meaning. O’Connor and
Chamberlain (1996) interviewed 38 adults in mid-life,
beginning with the question, ‘What do you think of as
an important source of meaning in your life?’ They
identified six broad sources of meaning: (i) Relationship
with People; (ii) Creativity; (iii) Religious and Spiritual;
(iv) Personal Development; (v) Social and Political; and
(vi) Relationships with Nature. Baum and Stewart (1990)
focused their efforts on sources of meaning across the
lifespan. A sample of men and women was assorted into
five developmental stages – young adulthood, adulthood,
middle adulthood, older middle adulthood, and older
adulthood – and asked to report on their most
meaningful events, the age that the event occurred, and
the reasons why it was meaningful. They reported seven
categories: (i) Work; (ii) Love and Marriage; (iii) Births
of Children; (vi) Independent Pursuits; (v) Accidents,
Illnesses, or Death; (vi) Separations and/or Divorces; and
(vii) Major Purchases.
Mixed-method approaches
Debats (1999) developed the Sources of Meaning Ques-
tionnaire (SOMQ) to implement a mixed-method
approach to sources of meaning in samples of young
adults who were psychiatric patients and those who were
not. The two-part SOMQ first asked participants, ‘If you
care to, please describe below in short the three most
important things that give meaning to your personal life
at the present moment.’ Next, participants provided a
rating of how committed they were to each source of
meaning listed (i.e. ‘Now, if you care to, please indicate
for each answer on the corresponding five-point scale to
what extent you are really committed to that particular
meaning’). Responses were initially coded using seven
categories: (i) Relationships; (ii) Lifework; (iii) Personal
Well-being; (iv) Self-actualization; (v) Service; (vi)
Beliefs; and (vii) Materiality;and added an eighth
category; (viii) Future/Hope, which appeared frequently
in participants’ responses. In this study, as in qualitative
research, Relationships were most frequently mentioned
by participants.
Quantitative approach/measures of sources of meaning
Drawing on this qualitative and mixed-methods research,
several researchers attempted to develop quantitative
measures of sources of meaning. Reker and Wong (1988)
developed the Sources of Meaning Profile (SOMP),
 532 M.F. Steger et al.
which instructed respondents to rate 13 sources of mean-
ing in terms of each source’s meaningfulness. Factor
analysis indicated four factors: Self-transcendence,
Collectivism, Individualism, and Self-preoccupation. In a
17-item revised version of this scale, the SOMP-R, Reker
(1996) reworded the items and added four items (Human-
istic Concerns, Hedonistic Activities, Material Posses-
sions, and Relationship with Nature) to improve the
factor structure of the original scale. This scale has been
used with samples from Canada, Australia, and Israel
(Prager, 1996). Prager, Savaya, and Bar-Tur, (2000) later
conducted focus groups and interviews with Jewish and
Arab Israelis in order to develop a culturally sensitive
measure of sources of meaning. The final scale consisted
of 41 items that created 11 subscales: (i) Family and
Communal Values; (ii) Materialistic Concerns/Values;
(iii) Life Satisfaction/Autonomy; (iv) Sense of Connect-
Downloaded by [Dicle University] at 00:51 14 November 2014
edness; (v) Communal Consciousness/Awareness; (vi)
Attainment of Tranquility/Peace; (vii) Leisure Pursuits;
Self-Development; (viii) Family Relationships; (xi)
Leisure Activities Away From Home; (x) Enjoyment
from Animals; and (xi) Relationship with Partner.
Wong (1998) developed the Personal Meaning Profile
(PMP) based on what he called people’s ‘implicit
theories’ about what constructs an ideally meaningful life.
Initial reports detailed several rounds of revision that
failed to yield a consistent factor structure. The final
version included 57 items which loaded on seven factors:
(i) Achievement; (ii) Relationship; (iii) Religion; (iv)
Self-transcendence; (v) Self-Acceptance; (vi) Intimacy;
and (vii) Fair Treatment (Wong, 1998). More recently,
Wong developed the PMP-B which is a short form of the
original PMP that includes all seven subscales, but only
three items for each, resulting in a total of 21 items.
Sources of meaning measures continue to be
developed. Fegg, Kramer, L’hoste, and Borasio (2008)
developed the Schedule for Meaning in Life Evaluation
which assessed 13 sources: (i) Family; (ii) Work/study-
ing; (iii) Friends; (iv) Partner; (v) Leisure time; (vi)
Religiosity; (vii) Health; (viii) Animals/nature; (xi)
Finances; (x) Well-being; (xi) Hedonism; (xii) Altruism;
and (xiii) Home/garden. Schnell’s (2009) Sources of
Meaning and Meaning in Life Questionnaire assesses 26
sources of meaning assorted into four dimensions: (i)
Self-transcendence (Vertical: explicit religiosity; spiritual-
ity; Horizontal: social commitment, unison with nature,
self-knowledge, health, generativity); (ii) Self-actualiza-
tion (challenge, individualism, power, development,
achievement, freedom, knowledge, creativity); (iii) Order
(tradition, practicality, morality, reason); and (iv)
Well-being and Relatedness (community, fun, love, com-
fort, care, attentiveness, harmony). These sources were
identified using structured interviews, in which partici-
pants indicated whether they agreed or disagreed with
each item as a source of meaning in their lives.
Group differences in sources of meaning
Research on sources of meaning indicates that differ-
ences exist in the sources people find meaningful,
depending on participants’ age, gender, culture, and other
sample characteristics. Several studies have found that
sources of meaning vary across the lifespan. Research by
Ebersole and colleagues (e.g. DePaola & Ebersole, 1995;
DeVogler & Ebersole, 1981; Ebersole & DePaola, 1987)
found that younger adults were more concerned with
Belief than Health or Pleasure, while Health and Plea-
sure were the second and third most frequently men-
tioned sources of meaning (after Relationships) reported
by the elderly. Schnell’s (2009) findings showed that
Horizontal Self-transcendence and Order increased with
age.
Gender differences also have been found in several
studies. Baum and Stewart (1990) reported that men find
meaning mostly in Work (72%), Love and Marriage
(61%), and Independent Pursuits (54%) while women
find meaning mostly in Births of Children (78%), Love
and Marriage (77%), and Work (72%). Schnell (2009)
found that females reported more Vertical Self-transcen-
dence, Well-being, and Relatedness than males, whereas
males reported more Self-actualization than females.
Differences among ethnic and cultural groups also
have been reported. Jenerson-Madden, Ebersole, and
Romero (1992) compared the types of meaning generated
by first-generation Mexican-Americans to that of Euro-
pean-Americans of similar age. They found that signifi-
cantly more Mexican-American adults (70%) named
Relationships as being central compared to European-
American adults (47%). Prager et al. (2000) found that
cultural differences between Israeli Arabs and Jews inter-
acted with age. For young Israelis, Family and Communal
Values and Communal Consciousness/Awareness were
more important among Arabs than among Jews. For older
Israelis, Materialistic Concerns/Values and Leisure Pur-
suits/Self-Development were more important among
Arabs than among Jews. In contrast, Life Satisfaction/
Autonomy and Connectedness/Belonging and Attainment
of Tranquility/Peace were more important for Jews com-
pared to Arabs, especially among older Israelis.
Sources of meaning may differ according to other,
non-demographic factors as well. A sample of typical
adults valued Relationships more than did eminent peo-
ple, who placed greater value on Life Work (Ebersole &
DeVogler-Ebersole, 1986). Student volunteers in a ser-
vice organization reported Growth as a way to find
meaning more often than non-volunteers (Braunstein &
Ebersole, 1992). Finally, psychiatric patients viewed
Self-actualization as a more important source of meaning
than did non-patients, while non-patients saw Personal
Well-being as more important than patients (Debats,
1999).
 The Journal of Positive Psychology
Despite these differences, there seems to be a
general consensus about the domains from which
people most often draw meaning. Emmons (2003)
argued that a consensus could be reached, based on
three studies (Ebersole, 1998; Emmons, 1999; Wong,
1998) that used diverse methodologies (rating scales,
surveys, and interviews) in heterogeneous populations.
He suggested that four major categories of life mean-
ing encompass the most typical sources of meaning:
Achievements/Work, Relationships/Intimacy, Religion/
Spirituality, and Self-transcendence/Generativity. Among
these categories, Relationships seem to be the most
frequent and consistent source of meaning reported across
studies (e.g. DeVogler & Ebersole, 1981; McCarthy, 1983,
1985).
Downloaded by [Dicle University] at 00:51 14 November 2014
A new approach to sources of meaning
Despite the breadth of the consensual categories, there
is still a lot of variability from one study to the next.
It is likely that many factors shape people’s sources of
meaning, including age, gender, culture, and life experi-
ences. It could be that individual variation in these
factors accounts for different results. Or, it could be
that methodological factors affect study findings.
Qualitative research has inherent limitations, including
difficulty with generalizability and obstacles to gauging
effect sizes or testing causality. Qualitative research
also poses challenges to efforts to synthesize results
across multiple research programs. In the case of
sources of meaning research, another potential problem
is the reliance on verbal expressiveness on the part of
research participants. Verbalizing what makes life
meaningful can be a challenging task for people. In
addition, people may have differing levels of verbal
ability, and differential ability to describe an experience
of meaning in life. Using written responses compounds,
these problems altering the content of people’s
responses, at least relative to verbal responses (e.g.
Esterling, Antoni, Fletcher, Margulies, & Schneiderman,
1994). Additionally, participants are typically asked to
write about their sources of meaning in a laboratory
setting, at one point in time. This means that there is
an absence of cues from their own lives that can
prompt their responses, which might lead to memory
biases, such as the availability heuristic (e.g. Schwartz
et al., 1991). Further, the act of writing or talking can
become a social-cognitive experience, in which people
may imagine their audience and frame their responses
to meet expectations. These two factors might lead to
an over-reliance on culturally stereotyped sources of
meaning, poorly specified and verbalized responses, or
satisficing in the face of the verbal demands of the
task. Finally, writing about sources of meaning during
a single session may derive an incomplete snapshot of
533
what really makes life meaningful for people, leaving
them no opportunity to update their written assessment
if they realize a certain aspect of their lives is mean-
ingful during their daily lives.
Due to these limitations of research solely relying
on written expression, we propose a new method to
explore sources of meaning using visual methods – in
particular, using the medium of photography. Visual
research methods have been used widely in fields such
as anthropology, ethnography, and sociology and are
becoming more popular in other social sciences such as
social psychology (e.g. Dollinger, 2002; Ziller & Lewis,
1981), health (e.g. Riley & Manias, 2004; Wang &
Burris, 1997), and organizational studies (e.g. Buchanan,
2001). Photographic data, which is one form of visual
data, provide a more direct record of the phenomena of
interest than any other data collection method used by
social science researchers and also capture the immedi-
ate moment when taken by the photographer (Grady,
2008). Photographs are easy for participants to produce,
requiring no training or sustained effort. But beyond
convenience, photographs are used by many researchers
because they can convey emotion. Rose delineates two
ways photographs can be used in social science research
based on how they each function as a part of a research
project. Supporting methods use photographs to try to
answer specific research questions. Supplemental
methods focus more on the specific visual qualities of
the photographs and treat them as stand-alone docu-
ments separate from any specific research questions. We
used the supporting method to evaluate previous efforts
to answer the question, ‘From where do people draw
meaning in their lives?’ To develop this method, we
drew upon two photographic methods – auto-photogra-
phy and photo-elicitation.
Auto-photography is a research method that
instructs participants to take pictures from their envi-
ronment of things or representations of things that are
important to them. In an examination of the ‘self-
concept,’ Ziller (1990) used this approach to allow
participants to represent themselves in their own con-
text and to become involved in the research process.
Ziller (1990) argued that the auto-photography method
allows communication across different cultures, in con-
trast to verbal methods, such as those used in previous
sources of meaning research. Another aspect of auto-
photography is that it frees participants from any
constraints of categories generated by researchers.
Noland reported two case studies in self-esteem and
identity research using auto-photography, one exploring
self-esteem of adolescent Latina teenage girls living in
Los Angeles and one studying identities of South
Asian immigrant women living in a small town in the
Midwest of the US. He concluded that adopting the
method of auto-photography generated more authentic
 534 M.F. Steger et al.
data because it allowed participants to select and
record images of their identity which they feel
represent them the best from their own view of what
is important. A further advantage of auto-photography
was the provision to participants of sufficient space
and time to contemplate the topic of study and how
they want to represent it, rather than having to come
up with on-the-spot answers. As such, a photographic
approach should yield richer data which is more
authentically representative of the participant’s perspec-
tive than on-the-spot verbal or written approaches.
Photo-elicitation is a technique developed by
Collier (1957) and Collier and Collier (1986) in which
photographs are used to prompt responses during an
interview. Collier’s research demonstrated that photo-
elicitation interviews elicited longer and more compre-
hensive responses than verbal interviews and also
Downloaded by [Dicle University] at 00:51 14 November 2014
helped participants overcome fatigue during the inter-
view (Collier, 1957). Collier (1957) asserted that state-
ments derived from photographic interviews were more
directly tied to the visual stimuli, whereas verbal inter-
views tended to be governed by the mood of the
informants. As Harper (2002) describes, photo-elicita-
tion ‘mines deeper shafts into a different part of
human consciousness than do words-alone interviews’
(p. 22–23).
Photo-elicitation interviews could be conducted
with researcher-only, participant-only, archival-only, or
a hybrid approach of photographic production. In
researcher-only photographic production, the researcher
(or research team) produces the photographs which
they want to use in the interview. In contrast, partici-
pant-only photographic production involves the partici-
pant being asked to take their own photographs to be
later used as stimuli during the interview (Clark,
1999; VanAuken, Frisvoll, & Stewart, 2010). Whereas
auto-photography typically solicits written descriptions
of the photographs, photo-elicitation elicits spoken
responses, which may prompt more in-depth responses
as well as provide participants with opportunities to
clarify or further expand on responses.
Overall, both auto-photography and photo-elicita-
tion seem to be effective tools for better understand-
ing what people find meaningful and from what
sources they draw meaning in their lives. Using pho-
tography may uncover information about sources of
meaning that has been missed by previous verbal
research. In our research, we have conducted studies
using auto-photography and photo-elicitation. In the
present article, we provide our findings from an auto-
photography study and describe an ongoing photo-
elicitation study.
Method
Participants
Eighty-six participants were recruited from an under-
graduate introductory psychology course at a large
University in the Western United States. The mean age
of the participants was 19.3 years (SD = 1.9). Most
(73.3%) of the participants were female, and the major-
ity of the sample was European-American (82.6%).
Participants received course credit for their participation
in the study.
Materials
Participants used a Kodak digital camera with 8.2 mega-
pixels. Using only the camera’s built-in memory, partici-
pants were limited to a maximum of 12 photographs.
Procedure
After consent procedures, participants were given a
battery of well-being, mental health, and personality
questionnaires to complete. Participants were then given
instructions and a brief training for using the camera.
Participants were instructed to ‘take photos of the things
that make your life feel meaningful.’ Participants were
informed that they could take photographs of abstract/
symbolic things (e.g. souvenirs, objets d’art, photographs
of other photographs depicting things that were not prox-
imal) because they would be given the opportunity to
describe the picture and what it meant at the end of the
week. Participants scheduled their next session exactly
one week after their first one. During the intervening
week, participants were given reminders of how many
days they had left until their second appointment. When
they returned for their second appointment, the photo-
graphs were downloaded from the camera and inserted
into an electronic presentation document that provided
one-half page for the photograph, and one-half page for
the participants to write a description of the photograph
and why it was meaningful to them. Each photograph
received its own slide, and each slide was printed on a
color printer. While the photograph rating sheets were
being printed, participants completed a brief survey
inquiring about their current mood that included state
measures of meaning in life, depression, and anxiety.
Participants then were handed the printed sheets and
wrote their description of the photographs they took.
Participants were asked to rank each photograph in terms
of its importance to their meaning in life and to stack all
of the photographs in that same order. When they were
finished, they completed a duplicate form of the brief
mood survey, as well as a duplicate form of the original
questionnaire battery. Following this, participants were
debriefed.
 The Journal of Positive Psychology
Data analysis
Photographic data were analyzed using an analytic
inductive coding approach by two trained undergraduate
research assistants (B.R. and L.B.) and a graduate
researcher (Y.S.) from November 2011 to April 2012. A
constant comparative analysis method based on grounded
theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) was adopted as the cod-
ing approach. In constant comparative analysis, the codes
are induced from the participants’ responses without any
a priori codes. This method was selected because it
allows for new information within the data to surface
during analysis. Since the purpose of this study was not
to develop a theory, but to determine representative cate-
gories of sources of meaning, only the two initial stages
of coding – open coding (developing categories for
information) and axial coding (interconnecting catego-
ries) – were conducted. In the open coding phase, the
Downloaded by [Dicle University] at 00:51 14 November 2014
three coders independently examined each photograph
and its participant-generated description to draw seg-
ments of the data which were informative of participants’
sources of meaning. These were then classified into two
hierarchical levels of coding – a main category and a
subcategory (if needed to describe the photograph and
description). Multiple categories were allowed for each
photograph if necessary. The last level of analysis
involved determining whether the participant attached a
specific meaning to the photograph within the apparent
category and subcategory. In vivo codes (Creswell, 2007)
were often used to label the meanings which were
directly taken from the participants’ narratives. After the
initial, independent coding, the three researchers com-
pared and discussed their findings and came to a mutual
agreement on the main category, subcategory (if applica-
ble), and the meaning for each photograph. As the cod-
ing process evolved, a list of core categories with their
subcategories and meanings was compiled. Throughout
the coding process, and after it was completed, axial
coding was conducted by the researchers, which
involved a process of merging categories when possible
and consolidating the list of meanings to ensure that the
categories were non-redundant. New categories were
added to the list when no previous category or meaning
could represent the data. This process was repeated until
the list of categories reached ‘saturation,’ a state where
no new information emerges from the data that requires
a new code.
Results
Figure 1 shows the main categories and subcategories
that emerged from the constant comparative analysis of
participants’ photographs assisted by their descriptions
of the photographs. The main categories show some
convergence with previous, verbal investigations. We
identified 16 sources of meaning: (i) Nature; (ii) Hobby/
535
Leisure; (iii) Relationships; (iv) Pets; (v) Possessions;
(vi) Everyday Necessities; (vii) Religion; (viii) Values;
(ix) Education; (x) Technology; (xi) Organizations/Activ-
ities; (xii) Physical Environment; (xiii) Future Aspira-
tions; (xiv) Occupation/Work; (xv) Self; and (xiv)
Miscellaneous. Several of these categories correspond
with previous research, including Relationships, Hobby/
Leisure, Religion, Values, Animals and Nature, and Pets
(cf. Ebersole, 1998; Fegg et al., 2008; Prager et al.,
2000). In addition, the Possessions, Technology, and
Everyday Necessities categories could correspond to
Materialistic Concerns (Prager et al., 2000) or Obtaining
(Ebersole, 1998) or perhaps Finances (Fegg et al.,
2008). However, a greater number of categories were
derived from this study than previous studies using ver-
bal response methods. In addition, participants in the
present study made distinctions among some categories
that are often merged in other research. For instance,
Work is distinguished from both Leisure and Education,
which is not always the case in other research. Further,
the distinctions among Pets, Nature, and Physical Envi-
ronment – as well as the distinctions among Possessions,
Technology, and Everyday Necessities – suggest that
participants in our sample made finer, non-verbal distinc-
tions about the aspects of their world that hold meaning
than was suggested by previous research using verbal
methods.
The verbal descriptions of sources of meaning which
were obtained in this study allowed participants to identify
the personal meaning of each photograph. These descrip-
tions made possible a breadth of content to be collected, as
well as a depth of personal relevance. Figure 2 shows the
meanings participants attached to photographs in the main
categories and provides some examples of photographs. In
many cases, the specific meaning of what is shown in the
photographs could not be guessed without participant
descriptions. For example, participant 33’s photograph of
food is quite baffling without the description.
Examining this selection of photographs and mean-
ings – drawn from roughly 1000 photographs – shows
that verbal descriptions of what makes life meaningful
seem more prone to coalesce around a limited number of
‘Big Themes’. In participants’ descriptions, emergent
themes included comfort, relationships, goals, health,
religion, heritage, work, and helping. These themes
cross-categories of photographs. A poster for a charitable
cause shares roots with a tractor and a man at a custodial
job because all mean providing for others to the photog-
rapher. A mountain and a drawing share roots with a
dog and a cupboard of food because all signify some
kind of comfort. Thus, the photographic method revealed
a seemingly endlessly varied set of pictures that
nonetheless revealed 16 main categories, many more
subcategories, and unique paths to some well-known
themes of the meaningful life. As in previous research,
 536 M.F. Steger et al.
Main Sub-Category
Category
Nature Mountains, Flowers, Seasons, Body
of water
Hobby/ Leisure Art, Photography, Music, Travel,
Reading, Cooking, Sports,
Exercise, Outdoor Activities, Being
Outdoors, Social Interaction,
Events/ Performances, Fashion,
Fandom, Video Games, Gardening
Relationships Family, Friends, Romantic Partner,
Child, Co-Workers
Pets (no sub-categories identified)
Possessions Car, Bike, House, Clothing, Gift,
Educational supplies, Water Bottle,
Calendar, Scrapbook, Souvenir,
License Plate, Stuffed animal,
Downloaded by [Dicle University] at 00:51 14 November 2014
Everyday Food, Money, Sleep
Necessities
Religion Faith, God, Guiding Discipline,
Community
Values Love, Fun, Laughter, Happiness,
Humor, Humility, Integrity,
Strength, Harmony, Care, Life,
Knowledge/Learning,
Organization, Perfection, Health,
Individuality, Freedom, Privacy,
Diversity, Environmentalism, Gay
Rights, Politics, Military,
Education Major, School Pride, Academic
Success
Technology Cell phone, Laptops
Organization/ Sorority, Fraternity, Community
Activities Service, Marching Band, Sports
team
Physical Church, Library, Campus,
Environment Neighborhood, House, Hometown,
Room/Dorm
Future (no sub-categories identified)
Aspirations
Occupation/ (no sub-categories identified)
Work
Self (no sub-categories identified)
Miscellaneous Holidays, Children (non-family),
Experience, Farming, Past
Figure 1. Main categories and subcategories identified in participants’ photographs.
Relationships emerge as the most common source of
meaning (Table 1), and half or more of our sample also
photographed Hobby/Leisure, Nature, and Education
sources of meaning.
Definition
All elements of the natural world.
Any activity that is pursued for
pleasure or relaxation and is not their
occupation.
Any emotional connection,
involvement, or association between
the participant and another person(s),
as identified by the participant.
Domestic animals that are kept as
companions.
Material objects identified as
particularly important and meaningful
to the participant. Ownership.
Any material or act that is identified as
needed for everyday survival.
An identified specific set of beliefs and
practices followed by the participant.
The following of a specific religion.
A belief, principle, or characteristic that
is identified as important to the
participant either personally or to
society.
Involvement in higher education.
Actively pursuing knowledge.
The use of modern technology as tools
in everyday life
Any identified involvement in a
specific group or activity that adds
meaning or purpose to the participant’s
life.
Any specific location identified by the
participant that is frequented often
and/or holds special meaning.
Future plans, goals, or careers
identified by the participant as actively
pursuing.
A current occupation of the participant.
The participant themselves.
Any topic discussed by a participant
that does not fit into a Main Category
or Sub-Category, or a topic that was
only discussed by one participant.
Discussion
Meaning in life research has been conducted for
decades, yet it seems to be enjoying a burst of energy
and excitement. Research consistently affirms that
 The Journal of Positive Psychology 537

Main Category Common Meanings Examples Photo Examples

Nature Beauty, Relaxation, Participant 22: “This
Mood Elevation, picture represents the
Reminder of beauty of the world.
God/Faith, Escape, Stopping and taking it
Experience, Comfort, all in helps make life
Adventure, meaningful.”
Appreciation

Hobby/ Leisure Self- expression, Participant 56: “This is a

Stress relief, picture of me drawing.
Relaxation, This is meaningful
Motivation, Learning, because it lets me be
Enjoyment, Passion, creative; and helps me
Mood Enhancement, stay calm.”
Exploration

Relationships Support, Guidance, Participant 36:” This is a

Realization of values, drawing of my family
Value relationship, because they live
Downloaded by [Dicle University] at 00:51 14 November 2014

Encouragement, somewhere else. They

Understanding, Love, are very meaningful to
Care, Reason to live, me because they have
Inspiration, Having a been here for me my
fun time together, whole life. I can depend
Self- development on them and am loved
by them. They always
support me and teach me
valuable things. “
Pets Responsibility, Participant 38:” She is a
Companionship, great comfort and safety
Fondness, mechanism. She also
Unconditional love, gives me something to
Safety, Attachment, take care of, she depends
Constant presence, on me-so through her I
Loyalty, Calming gain some sense of
meaning.”

Figure 2. Main category, meanings held by participants regarding that category, and examples of photographs (this photograph was
intentionally distorted to protect the identity of the research participant).

meaning is a cornerstone of the Good Life. Beyond
the basic notion that meaning is good, though, our
understanding of the sources from where meaning is
derived is limited. This is especially true when it
comes to probing the existential emphasis on the idea
that each of us, independently, uniquely forges our
own idiosyncratic meaning in our lives. Previous
research, in which people write about what makes life
meaningful, or endorse various lists of sources of
meaning that are provided to them, has identified a
variable but reasonably consistent set of sources of
meaning. The reliance of these methods on verbal
descriptions of sources of meaning could place con-
straints on the richness and completeness of data
derived from these studies. Therefore, we sought to
develop a photographic method for understanding what
makes someone’ life meaningful that did not rely
solely on verbal filtering and instead literally showed
what meaning looked like for participants.
The results of our study show that there is both vast
complexity and familiarity in the sources from which
people draw meaning. Categories like Relationships,
Religion, Values, Nature, and Work echo previous verbal
research (e.g. Ebersole, 1998). Yet, many categories and
dozens of subcategories emerged from the photographic
data, seeming to arise from much finer distinctions than
previous research had revealed. Photographs seemed to
provide strong testimony about the many different ways
in which people find answers to existential questions.
When participants were given the opportunity to describe
their photographs, the underlying themes were often sur-
prising given the obvious content of the images, but also
reflected common, broad themes. The photographic
method seemed to yield nearly fractal-like data, in which
new variations on larger themes are encountered. It is
because of this ‘bottomless yet meaningful’ sense of
meaning that emerged that we are pursuing an extension
to this work using photo-elicitation.
 538 M.F. Steger et al.

Possessions Transportation, Gift Participant 8:” This is

from loved one, my car. It is meaningful
Pride, cause it allows me to
Accomplishment, travel and get around. I
Memories of home, rely on it every day and
reliability, Fun, it is very meaningful to
Comfort me.”

Everyday Memories, Nostalgia, Participant 33: “My food

Necessities Survival, Energy, keeps me fueled and
Comfort, Enjoyment, energized. It is also there
Forming bonds, in times for comfort.”
Importance

Religion Guidance, Maintain Participant 43: “It shows

values, Morals, my Bible and a packet I
Devotion, Core did. My faith is the most
values, Purpose, important thing in my
Reliance, Influence, life because God created
Downloaded by [Dicle University] at 00:51 14 November 2014

Heritage me and has already

decided a purpose for
my life and He will lead
me through everything
in my life.”
Values Motivation, Life Participant 15: “Health:
principle, Enjoyment, it’s important to workout
Lifestyle, most days of the week
Importance, and eat healthy because
Influence, Activism, it keeps the balance and
Pride, Aspiration, makes me feel good
Admiration about myself. “

Education Pathway to future Participant 9: “This is

goals, Achievement, the Ram logo. It
Pride, Opportunity, represents my
Learning, Pursuit of opportunity to
Knowledge, experience all these
Independence, great things in Colorado.
Personal Growth, It also is meaningful
Importance, because it is where I
Enjoyment, work hard at school. It
Motivation, School will help me achieve my
pride, Gratitude goal to become an
occupational therapist.”
Technology Communication, Participant 66: “This is a
picture of my cell phone
Escape, Connection, and laptop. These are
Resource ways that help me to
stay connected with my
family even though we
are miles apart.”

Figure 2. (Continued)

Limitations and future research
Though our findings from the auto-photography study
generated rich, informative responses which also
captured the subtle meanings of the sources, some
photographs were difficult to interpret even with the
written descriptions. One of the advantages of photo-
elicitation is that it offers an opportunity for the
participants to clarify what they actually meant to
represent (Blinn & Harrist, 1991). Having a chance to
discuss the photographs with the participant in detail
will provide the additional benefit of increasing the
trustworthiness of the findings through a ‘member
checking’ strategy. Furthermore, during the interview,
the photographs may ‘elicit’ deeper feelings and
 The Journal of Positive Psychology 539

Organizations/ New Experiences, Participant 50: “This

Activities Helping others, picture represents
Friendship, “giving back to the
Achievement, Social community” and
interaction, volunteer work. This is
Teamwork, meaningful in my life
Commitment, because it is something
Influence that I enjoy doing.
Helping other gives my
life meaning. “
Physical Shelter, Childhood Participant 14: “This is
Environment memories, Safety, where I currently live. It
Relaxation, represents a place of
Community, Escape, relaxation and shelter
Privacy, Stomping from all the stresses of
ground, Nostalgia, everyday life. It also
Gratitude, Ownership represents
independence.”
Future Passion, Enjoyment, Participant 61: “This is
Aspirations Accomplishments, my DJ gear. This helps
Motivation, bring meaning to my life
Downloaded by [Dicle University] at 00:51 14 November 2014

Contribution, because it is a goal I

Direction strive for. I want to
become a big name DJ
and it’s something I’m
working on.”
Occupation/Work Pride, Providing for Participant 24: “This is
family, Source of my work at the Lory
income, Passion, Student Center. Though
Responsibility, Effort I am a custodian, I am
proud to be one. This is
the first job that will not
get me in trouble, I am
proud because the job
pays for my family.”
Self1 Support, Self-Love Participant 20: “This is a
picture of me. I am my
best support and I love
being me. “

Miscellaneous Influence, Hard Participant 19: “The

work, Heritage, main focus is a tractor. I
Means of living, picked it because I
Innocence, Honesty, wanted to show how
Love, Trust, Family farming was a large
traditions, Memories influence in my life. It
shows that there are still
people who work hard
just to put food on the
table. And that those are
my roots.”

Figure 2. (Continued)

expand thoughts about the sources of
pants have rated, which provides a
participants to reflect on things they
thought about. Therefore, we are
going research which combines the
present study with the addition of
interviews to deepen and extend the
pilot study.
meaning partici- In addition to future research that seeks more depth,
chance for the future research should also seek more breadth by using
may have never this photographic method to explore meaning in the lives
conducting on- of diverse populations. The present study was limited by
methods of the its reliance on college students. Qualitative research on
photo-elicitation sources of meaning has already shown that the emphasis
findings of this people from different groups place on specific sources of
meaning vary quite a bit (e.g. Prager et al., 2000). By
 540 M.F. Steger et al.

Table 1. Frequency with which participants took photographs cheap digital cameras, future research may not need to
within each category. provide participants with cameras. Instead, participants
Number of Percentage of could be solicited through a variety of means, including
participants participants submitting internet methods such as Mechanical Turk, and asked to
Main submitting matching matching photograph use their own means of taking digital photographs,
category photograph (%) which could then be uploaded to the researchers.
Relationships 77 89.5 Each of the sources of meaning identified in the
Hobby/ 61 70.9 present study and similar research holds possibilities for
Leisure future research. Research could dig deeper into each
Nature 50 58.1 category in an effort to understand what it is about pet,
Education 43 50.0
hobbies, or possessions that holds such meaning for
Possessions 37 43.0
Physical 30 34.9 people. For example, people who experience meaning
environment around pets might do so because they appreciate some
Pets 28 32.6 entity needing them, which gives them a sense of signif-
Values 26 30.2 icance and contribution. Alternatively, they might also
Religion 19 22.1
find that pets facilitate their social experiences, enhanc-
Technology 15 17.4
Everyday 13 15.1 ing their sense of belongingness. For one person, a
Downloaded by [Dicle University] at 00:51 14 November 2014

necessities possession like a truck may be the means through which

Organization/ 11 12.8
Activities
Future 5 5.8
aspirations
Occupation/ 3 3.5
Work
Self 2 2.3
Miscellaneous 7 8.1
side-stepping a complete reliance on written and verbal
abilities, this photographic method holds great potential
for being transportable to nearly any population. People
who have been incarcerated could use photography to
share their world and their way of finding meaning. Sim-
ilarly, people enduring lengthy medical or psychiatric
hospital stays may find different routes to meaning. Poor,
illiterate, homeless, or migrant people may be most
likely to benefit from a photographic research method.
Insight into their experiences would benefit meaning in
life research tremendously, yet these populations have
been almost completely neglected.
Future research should strive to cross-cultural
divides. Photographic methods of exploring sources of
meaning might succeed where linguistic bridges fail, as
photographs hold communicative power that is distinct
from narrative. Even in our small, university sample, sur-
prising subcultural nuances seemed to appear. For exam-
ple, participant 19 takes pride in the hard work of
farming. Among people who do farm work, what is it
precisely that fosters a sense of meaning in life and does
the sources of meaning vary, or function similarly, across
cultural context? Getting a photographic tour of the
meaning in the life of a Maasai herdsman, or a Peruvian
miner, or a Cambodian river merchant could open up
new worlds of insight.
Given the rapid proliferation of personal, photogra-
phy-enabled technology, such as cell phones, tablets, and
she is able to work and support her dream of graduating
from college; for another, a truck might be a status
symbol that boosts self-esteem and helps him obtain
romantic partners. Very little research has gone beyond
the question of asking ‘how much meaning’ to ask
‘where from,’ and even less has gone even further to
ask ‘why.’
Gaining a detailed picture of individuals’ unique
experience of meaning offers the compelling advantage
of enabling the development of better meaning interven-
tions. Elsewhere, we describe the results of a pilot
study showing that people’s meaning in life increased
after a week of taking sources of meaning photographs
and also after reviewing and describing the photographs
that were taken (Steger, Shim, Barenz, & Shin, in
press). This seems like a natural, ipsative way of mak-
ing meaning more salient and tangible for people. More
research is needed, but there is a distinct possibility that
through the act of trying to understand meaning in peo-
ple’s lives through photography, researchers may give
people a way to gain greater appreciation of their
meanings in life.
Conclusion
Meaning in life research has made great progress using
self-report questionnaires and surveys. Regardless of
how sound the psychometric properties of a survey may
be, however, surveys may only provide a ‘snapshot’ of
perceived meaning in life, at a certain point in time,
under influences of potential errors. Complementing sur-
vey research with qualitative investigations into meaning
in life offers a way to remediate the limitations of survey
research, by allowing examinations of people’s meaning
of meaningfulness in greater depth, as it is experienced
and lived. By balancing the sizeable quantitative litera-
ture about meaning in life with qualitative approaches,
 The Journal of Positive Psychology
we may reach a more clear understanding of the multi-
faceted nature of meaningfulness itself, including what
makes meaning meaningful.
References
Battista, J., & Almond, R. (1973). The development of
meaning in life. Psychiatry, 36, 409–427.
Baum, S. K., & Stewart, R. B., Jr. (1990). Sources of meaning
through the lifespan. Psychological Reports, 67, 3–14.
Blinn, L., & Harrist, A. W. (1991). Combining native instant
photography and photo-elicitation. Visual Anthropology, 4,
175–192.
Braunstein, S., & Ebersole, P. (1992). Categories of life mean-
ing for service organization volunteers. Psychological
Reports, 70, 281–282.
Buchanan, D. A. (2001). The role of photography in organiza-
tion research: A reengineering case illustration. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 10, 151–164.
Downloaded by [Dicle University] at 00:51 14 November 2014
Clark, C. D. (1999). The autodriven interview: A photographic
viewfinder into children’s experiences. Visual Sociology,
14, 39–50.
Collier, J. (1957). Photography in anthropology: A report on
two experiments. American Anthropologist, 59, 843–859.
Collier, J., & Collier, M. (1986). Visual anthropology: Photog-
raphy as a research method. Albuquerque, NM: University
of New Mexico Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research
design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.) Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crumbaugh, J. C., & Maholick, L. T. (1964). An experimental
study in existentialism: The psychometric approach to
Frankl’s concept of noogenic neurosis. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 20, 200–207.
Debats, D. L. (1999). Sources of meaning: An investigation
of significant commitments of in life. Journal of Humanis-
tic Psychology, 39, 30–57. doi:10.1177/0022167899394003
DePaola, S. J., & Ebersole, P. (1995). Meaning in life catego-
ries of elderly nursing home residents. International Jour-
nal of Aging and Human Development, 40, 227–236.
DeVogler, K. E., & Ebersole, P. (1980). Categorization of col-
lege students’ meaning of life. Psychological Reports, 46,
387–390. doi:10.2466/pr0.1980.46.2.387
DeVogler, K. E., & Ebersole, P. (1981). Adults’ meaning in
life. Psychological Reports, 49, 87–90.
DeVogler, K. E., & Ebersole, P. (1983). Young adolescents’
meaning in life. Psychological Reports, 52, 427–431.
Dollinger, S. J. (2002). Physical attractiveness, social connect-
edness, and individuality: An autographic study. The Jour-
nal of Social Psychology, 142, 25–32.
Ebersole, P. (1998). Types and depth of written life meaning.
In P. T. P. Wong & P. S. Fry (Eds.), The human quest for
meaning: a handbook of psychological research and clini-
cal applications (pp. 179–191). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Ebersole, P., & DePaola, S. J. (1987). Meaning in life catego-
ries of later life couples. The Journal of Psychology, 121,
185–191. doi:10.1080/00223980.1987.9712656
Ebersole, P., & DePaola, S. J. (1989). Meaning in life depth in
the active married elderly. Journal of Psychology: Interdis-
ciplinary and Applied, 123, 171–178.
Ebersole, P., & DeVogler, K. L. (1981). Meaning in life:
Category self-ratings. The Journal of Psychology, 107,
289–293.
541
Ebersole, P., & DeVogler-Ebersole, K. (1986). Meaning in life
of the eminent and the average. Journal of Social Behavior
and Personality, 1, 83–94.
Emmons, R. A. (1999). The psychology of ultimate concerns:
Motivation and spirituality in personality. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Emmons, R. A. (2003). Personal goals, life meaning, and virtue:
Wellsprings of a positive life. In C. L. M. Keyes & J. Haidt
(Eds.), Flourishing (pp. 105–128). Washington, DC: APA.
Esterling, B. A., Antoni, M. H., Fletcher, M. A., Margulies, S.,
& Schneiderman, N. (1994). Emotional disclosure through
writing or speaking modulates latent Epstein-Barr virus
antibody titers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 62, 130–140.
Fegg, M. J., Kramer, M., L’hoste, S., & Borasio, G. D. (2008).
The Schedule for Meaning in Life Evaluation (SMiLE):
Validation of a new instrument for meaning-in-life research.
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 35, 356–364.
Frankl, V. E. (1963). Man’s search for meaning: An
introduction to logotherapy. New York, NY: Washington
Square Press.
Grady, J. (2008). Visual Research at the Crossroads. Forum:
Qualitative Social Research, 9, Art. 38. Retrieved from
http://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0803384
Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo
elicitation. Visual Studies, 17, 13–26.
Jenerson-Madden, D., Ebersole, P., & Romero, A. M. (1992).
Personal life meaning of Mexicans. Journal of Social
Behavior & Personality, 7, 151–161.
Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002).
Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two
traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
82, 1007–1022.
Maddi, S. R. (1970). The search for meaning. In M. Page
(Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 137–186).
Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
McCarthy, S. V. (1983). Geropsychology: Meaning in life for
adults over seventy. Psychological Reports, 53, 497–498.
McCarthy, S. V. (1985). Geropsychology: Meaning in life for
Elderhostelers. Psychological Reports, 56, 351–354.
Owens, G. P., Steger, M. F., Whitesell, A. A., & Herrera, C. J.
(2009). Relationships among posttraumatic stress disorder,
guilt, and meaning in life for military veterans. Journal of
Traumatic Stress, 22, 654–657.
O’Conner, K., & Chamberlain, K. (1996). Dimensions of life
meaning: A qualitative investigation at mid-life. British
Journal of Psychology, 87, 461–477.
Park, C. L., & Folkman, S. (1997). Meaning in the context
of stress and coping. Review of General Psychology, 1,
115–144.
Prager, E. (1996). Exploring personal meaning in an age-differ-
entiated Australian sample: Another look at the Sources of
Meaning Profile (SOMP). Journal of Aging Studies, 10,
117–136.
Prager, E., Savaya, R., & Bar-Tur, L. (2000). The development
of a culturally sensitive measure of sources of life meaning.
In G. T. Reker & K. Chamberlain (Eds.), Exploring exis-
tential meaning (pp. 123–136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reker, G. T. (1996). Manual of the sources of meaning profile-
revised (SOMP-R). Peterborough, ON: Student Psychologist
Press.
Reker, G. T., & Wong, P. T. P. (1988). Aging as an individual
process: Toward a theory of personal meaning. In J. E. Bir-
ren & V. L. Bengston (Eds.), Emergent theories of aging
(pp. 214–246). New York, NY: Springer.
 542 M.F. Steger et al.
Riley, R. G., & Manias, E. (2004). The uses of photography in
clinical nursing practice and research: A literature review.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48, 397–405.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it?
Explorations of the meaning of psychological well-being.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081.
Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of well-
being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 69, 719–727.
Schnell, T. (2009). The sources of meaning and meaning in
life questionnaire (SoMe): Relations to demographics and
well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 483–
499.
Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-
Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as
information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 195–202.
Steger, M. F. (2009). Meaning in life. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), Oxford
handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 679–687).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Downloaded by [Dicle University] at 00:51 14 November 2014
Steger, M. F. (2012). Experiencing meaning in life: Optimal
functioning at the nexus of spirituality, psychopathology,
and well-being. In P. T. P. Wong, & P. S. Fry (Eds.), The
human quest for meaning (2nd ed., pp. 165–184). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Steger, M. F., & Frazier, P. (2005). Meaning in life: One link
in the chain from religion to well-being. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 52, 574–582.
Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The
meaning in life questionnaire: Assessing the presence of
and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 53, 80–93.
Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., & Zacchanini, J. L. (2008). Terrorism
in two cultures: Traumatization and existential protective
factors following the September 11th attacks and the
Madrid train bombings. Journal of Trauma and Loss, 13,
511–527.
Steger, M. F., & Kashdan, T. B. (2007). Stability and
specificity of meaning in life and life satisfaction over one
year. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 161–179.
Steger, M. F., & Kashdan, T. B. (2009). Depression and every-
day socialactivity, intimacy, and well-being. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 56, 289–300.
Steger, M. F., Kashdan, T. B., Sullivan, B. A., & Lorentz,
D. (2008). Understanding the search for meaning in life:
Personality, cognitive style, and the dynamic between
seeking and experiencing meaning. Journal of
Personality, 76, 199–228.
Steger, M. F., Mann, J., Michels, P., & Cooper, T. (2009).
Meaning in life, anxiety, depression, and general health
among smoking cessation patients. Journal of Psychoso-
matic Research, 67, 353–358.
Steger, M. F., Oishi, S., & Kashdan, T. B. (2009). Meaning in
life across the life span: Levels and correlates of meaning
in life from emerging adulthood to older adulthood.
Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 43–52.
Steger, M. F., Shim, Y., Barenz, J., & Shin, J. Y. (in press)
Through the windows of the soul: A pilot study using pho-
tography to enhance meaning in life. Manuscript under
review.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research:
Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Taylor, S. J., & Ebersole, P. (1993). Meanings in life in young
children. Psychological Reports, 73, 1099–1104.
Thompson, N. J., Coker, J., Krause, J. S., & Henry, E. (2003).
Purpose in life as a mediator of adjustment after spinal cord
injury. Rehabilitative Psychology, 48, 100–108.
VanAuken, P. M., Frisvoll, S. J., Stewart, S. I. (2010). Visualis-
ing community: Using participant-driven photo-elicitation
for research and application. Local Environment, 15, 373–
388.
Wang, C., & Burris, M. A. (1997). Photovoice: Concept,
methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment.
Health Education & Behavior, 24, 369–387.
Wong, P. T. P. (1998). Implicit theories of meaningful life and
the development of the Personal Meaning Profile. In P. T.
P. Wong, & P. S. Fry (Eds.), The human quest for mean-
ing: A handbook of psychological research and clinical
applications (pp. 111–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-
baum.
Wong, P. T. P. (2012). Meaning-in-life measures and develop-
ment of a brief version of the personal meaning profile. In
P. T. P. Wong (Ed.), The human quest for meaning: Theo-
ries, research, and applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Ziller, R. C. (1990). Photographing the self: Methods for
observing personal orientations. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Ziller, R. C., & Lewis, D. (1981). Orientations: Self, social,
and environmental percepts through auto-photography.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 338–343.