Meaning in Life Questionnaire

Abstract

The Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ) is a premier 10-item self-report psychometric instrument designed to assess two distinct, structurally independent dimensions of existential meaning: the Presence of Meaning (how much individuals perceive their lives as having purpose, significance, and coherence) and the Search for Meaning (the degree to which individuals actively seek, strive for, or explore life purpose and deeper significance). Developed by Michael F. Steger, Patricia Frazier, Shigehiro Oishi, and Matthew Kaler in 2006, the scale was created to address long-standing methodological, semantic, and psychometric limitations inherent in earlier meaning measures, such as the Purpose in Life Test (PIL) and the Life Regard Index (LRI), which frequently conflated meaning itself with related psychological well-being constructs, mood states, and general positive affect.

Each item of the MLQ is scored along a 7-point Likert-type response format ranging from 1 (Absolutely Untrue) to 7 (Absolutely True). The scale yields two distinct subscale scores: the Presence of Meaning Subscale (MLQ-P; Items 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9 reverse-scored) and the Search for Meaning Subscale (MLQ-S; Items 2, 3, 7, 8, and 10). Psychometric evaluations across diverse empirical populations have demonstrated robust structural characteristics: confirmatory factor analyses consistently validate an orthogonal or weakly correlated two-factor solution; internal consistency estimates regularly exceed α = .80 across both subscales; and test-retest coefficients demonstrate solid temporal stability alongside responsiveness to existential transitions. Convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity assessments confirm that the MLQ reliably differentiates existential fulfillment from active cognitive searching, offering vital diagnostic, prognostic, and evaluative utility in clinical psychology, positive psychology, counseling, existential psychotherapy, and behavioral health research.

Keywords

Meaning in Life Questionnaire, MLQ, presence of meaning, search for meaning, existential psychology, logotherapy, psychological well-being, psychometrics, purpose in life, positive psychology, eudaimonia, factor analysis, self-report inventory

Authors

The Meaning in Life Questionnaire was formulated and validated by a collaborative research team led by:

• Michael F. Steger, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology and Director of the Center for Meaning and Purpose at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. He is widely recognized as a foundational scholar in positive psychology, existential meaning, and organizational meaning-making.
• Patricia Frazier, Ph.D. — Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Psychology at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, Minnesota, USA, specializing in stress, coping, post-traumatic growth, and counseling psychology.
• Shigehiro Oishi, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology at the University of Chicago (formerly at the University of Virginia), USA, renowned for his empirical investigations into subjective well-being, culture, and existential aspects of the psychological “rich life.”
• Matthew Kaler, M.A. — Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, USA, contributing methodological and psychometric expertise to the primary validation studies.

Inquiries regarding research permissions, translations, and theoretical applications are facilitated through Dr. Steger’s official academic repository (www.michaelfsteger.com).

Purpose

The core purpose of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ) is to provide an efficient, psychometrically sound, theoretically clean, and empirically validated assessment of existential meaning. For decades, existential psychologists, humanistic practitioners, and behavioral health researchers recognized that human beings possess an innate, primary motivational drive to discover, construct, and sustain a sense of purpose and significance within their existence. However, early instruments developed to quantify this dimension were plagued by severe conceptual contamination. Prominent tools such as the Purpose in Life Test (Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1964) heavily conflated the assessment of meaning with items measuring subjective happiness, enthusiasm, depression, somatic vitality, and suicidal ideation. Consequently, correlations between meaning and positive affect were often artificially inflated by item overlap, confounding empirical research.

Steger and colleagues (2006) engineered the MLQ specifically to decouple the measurement of meaning from its downstream affective correlates. By focusing strictly on cognitive appraisal and dynamic pursuit, the instrument isolates meaning as an independent psychological construct. Furthermore, the MLQ was designed to address a critical theoretical gap: prior inventories treated meaning purely as an outcome, static condition, or singular continuum ranging from existential vacuum to existential fulfillment. The MLQ reconceptualized the construct by introducing an indispensable orthogonal distinction between possessing meaning (Presence) and actively seeking meaning (Search).

In clinical and therapeutic settings, the MLQ serves multiple complementary functions:

• Diagnostic and Baseline Profiling: It allows clinicians to categorize clients into distinct existential quadrants (e.g., “Achieved Meaning,” “Searching Meaning,” “Unfulfilled Existential Vacuum,” or “Existential Indifference”), establishing baseline psychological states prior to psychotherapy or counseling.
• Treatment Planning and Monitoring: In logotherapy, existential-humanistic therapy, acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), the MLQ tracks longitudinal changes in clients’ existential clarity and navigational striving as they process trauma, bereavement, chronic illness, or major developmental milestones.
• Intervention Outcome Evaluation: The scale enables interventionists to ascertain whether therapeutic strategies increase presence of purpose, mitigate distressing rumination, or channel diffuse existential searching into productive value-directed action.

In research contexts, the MLQ is extensively utilized across personality psychology, social psychology, gerontology, palliative care, and occupational psychology to examine how the presence and search for meaning interact with life satisfaction, physical morbidity, resilience, job engagement, burnout, and global psychological flourishing.

Psychological Construct

The MLQ conceptualizes meaning in life not as an objective metaphysical certainty, but as an individual’s subjective cognitive appraisal of their existence. Meaning is fundamentally defined as the extent to which people comprehend, make sense of, or see significance in their lives, accompanied by the degree to which they perceive themselves to have a purpose, mission, or overarching aim. The instrument parses this overarching construct into two theoretically distinct yet interrelated dimensions:

1. The Presence of Meaning (MLQ-P)

The Presence of Meaning subscale measures the degree to which an individual experiences their current existence as inherently significant, purposeful, and comprehensible. Contemporary psychometric and theoretical literature partitions Presence into three underlying facets: (a) Coherence (the cognitive feeling that one’s experiences, personal identity, and worldview fit together in an orderly, understandable pattern); (b) Purpose (the motivational orientation characterized by overarching, highly valued life goals and future directives); and (c) Significance (the evaluative appraisal that one’s life matters, holds value, and has lasting weight in the wider world). Individuals scoring high on the MLQ-P affirm items such as “I understand my life’s meaning” and “My life has a clear sense of purpose.” Empirically, high Presence of Meaning is associated with psychological resilience, optimism, intrinsic motivation, positive affect, adaptive coping mechanisms, and physiological health buffers, including regulated cortisol profiles and lower systemic inflammation.

2. The Search for Meaning (MLQ-S)

The Search for Meaning subscale captures the primary, dynamic, and motivational process whereby an individual actively explores, strives for, or seeks to deepen purpose and significance. Historically, logotherapeutic models theorized that seeking meaning occurs primarily in the absence of meaning—as a painful symptom of the “existential vacuum” or existential neurosis. However, Steger et al. (2006) posited that the search for meaning can also reflect a healthy, growth-oriented, open-minded existential quest. Items such as “I am looking for something that makes my life feel meaningful” and “I am seeking a purpose or mission for my life” reflect an ongoing cognitive and behavioral engagement with life’s deeper potentials.

Interaction Between Presence and Search

Because the Presence and Search dimensions are structurally distinct, combining them produces an informative 2×2 existential matrix:

• High Presence / Low Search (Achieved / Satisfied): Individuals who experience deep clarity and purpose without experiencing the active urgency to seek alternatives. This quadrant is consistently correlated with peak life satisfaction, lower anxiety, and psychological stability.
• High Presence / High Search (Searching / Deepening): Individuals who possess a solid grounding in purpose but actively continue exploring, learning, and expanding their existential horizon. Common among highly creative, intellectually curious, and spiritually engaged populations.
• Low Presence / High Search (Crisis / Seeking): Individuals who experience an existential vacuum or major identity disruption (e.g., following trauma, divorce, or retirement) and are actively attempting to reconstruct personal significance. This state often entails existential distress, negative affect, and rumination, but carries high potential for transformative post-traumatic growth.
• Low Presence / Low Search (Alienated / Indifferent): Individuals who lack meaning and are not engaged in seeking it. This profile is frequently associated with anhedonia, alienation, depressive symptomatology, and existential apathy.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual framework of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire synthesizes classical existential philosophy, Viktor Frankl’s logotherapy, humanistic psychology, and modern cognitive and eudaimonic positive psychology frameworks.

Franklian Logotherapy and the Will to Meaning

The deepest historical foundation of the MLQ traces to the work of Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist Viktor E. Frankl (1905–1997). In his seminal work Man’s Search for Meaning (1946/1959), Frankl formulated logotherapy (“meaning-centered therapy”), proposing that the “will to meaning” is the primary motivational force in human existence, surpassing Sigmund Freud’s “pleasure principle” and Alfred Adler’s “will to power.” Frankl contended that human beings are capable of discovering meaning through three primary avenues: (1) creative values (what one gives to the world through work or deeds); (2) experiential values (what one takes from the world through encounters with nature, art, love, and relationships); and (3) attitudinal values (the stance one takes toward unavoidable suffering). The MLQ operationalizes Frankl’s core tenets while disentangling the subjective presence of that meaning from the dynamic will or drive to pursue it.

Eudaimonic Well-Being and Existential Psychology

Within contemporary positive psychology, the MLQ is situated squarely within the paradigm of eudaimonia, distinct from hedonic well-being. Hedonism conceptualizes well-being in terms of subjective pleasure, comfort, and the avoidance of pain. In contrast, eudaimonic models—traceable to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and refined by theorists such as Carol Ryff and Edward Deci & Richard Ryan—emphasize personal growth, self-realization, life purpose, and authentic functioning. The MLQ provides an exact measurement standard for the existential core of eudaimonia by capturing whether an individual evaluates their trajectory as purposeful and whether they are active agents in defining that purpose.

Cognitive-Motivational Framework of Meaning

Steger and colleagues expanded traditional existential thought by framing meaning within a modern cognitive-motivational matrix. In this view, meaning functions as an overarching cognitive schema that enables individuals to interpret environmental stimuli, integrate novel information into coherent autobiographical narratives, and prioritize long-term, goal-directed behavior. The cognitive component is captured by the Presence dimension (coherence, significance, and purpose attainment), whereas the motivational component is operationalized by the Search dimension (goal striving, exploratory behavior, and existential curiosity).

Validity

Extensive psychometric investigations have established exceptional construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity for the Meaning in Life Questionnaire across diverse clinical, non-clinical, collegiate, geriatric, and cross-cultural cohorts.

Construct and Structural Validity

During the initial development across multiple independent samples totaling more than 1,500 participants, Steger et al. (2006) demonstrated that a two-factor orthogonal model demonstrated superior fit compared to single-factor, hierarchical, or alternate multi-factor configurations. Exploratory factor analyses revealed that all Presence items loaded strongly on their intended factor (loadings ranging from .62 to .84) with negligible cross-loadings onto the Search factor (< .15), and vice versa (Search loadings ranging from .70 to .87). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) robustly substantiated this two-dimensional structure across validation and replication samples.

Convergent Validity

The MLQ-P demonstrates statistically significant positive correlations with theoretically aligned psychological variables, including:

• Life Satisfaction: Strong positive associations with the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; r = .40 to .65).
• Positive Affect: Moderate-to-strong correlations with the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS positive affect; r = .35 to .50).
• Self-Esteem: Strong correlations with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (r = .45 to .55).
• Optimism: Positive associations with the Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R; r = .40 to .52).
• Eudaimonic Well-Being: Substantial convergence with Ryff’s Scales of Psychological Well-Being, specifically the Purpose in Life subscale (r > .60).

Conversely, MLQ-P demonstrates robust inverse correlations with indicators of psychological distress, such as the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; r = −.35 to −.52), generalized anxiety, and suicidal ideation.

Discriminant Validity

A primary objective of the MLQ was eliminating the substantial item-content overlap present in older scales. Discriminant validity analyses confirmed that the MLQ-P shares limited variance with social desirability measures (e.g., Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale; r typically < .15), proving that responses reflect genuine existential evaluations rather than socially conforming self-presentation. Furthermore, while MLQ-P correlates with positive emotionality, structural equation modeling shows that Presence of Meaning accounts for significant unique variance in flourishing, hope, and physical health outcomes even after partialing out global positive affect and Big Five personality traits.

Crucially, the correlation between the MLQ-P (Presence) and MLQ-S (Search) subscales ranges between slightly negative to orthogonal in Western populations (r = −.15 to −.28 in college and adult US cohorts), confirming that the presence of meaning and the active search for meaning are distinct psychological processes rather than opposite ends of a single continuum. Cross-cultural studies (e.g., in Japan and South Korea; Steger, Kawabata, Shimai, & Otake, 2008) have observed moderate positive correlations between Presence and Search (r = .10 to .30), demonstrating that cultural values (such as dialectical thinking and collectivism) shape the relationship between these constructs without undermining the structural integrity of either factor.

Reliability

The Meaning in Life Questionnaire displays consistently high internal consistency and temporal stability across a broad spectrum of populations and demographic environments.

Internal Consistency

In the foundational validation study by Steger et al. (2006), Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the Presence subscale consistently ranged from α = .81 to α = .86 across both discovery and validation cohorts. The Search subscale demonstrated similarly high internal consistency, with coefficients ranging from α = .84 to α = .90. Subsequent cross-cultural adaptations—spanning Chinese, Spanish, German, Portuguese, Turkish, Italian, and Japanese translations—have verified these benchmarks, typically reporting alpha coefficients exceeding .80 for both subscales (often between .82 and .88).

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Temporal stability was established by assessing test-retest coefficients over distinct time intervals. Steger et al. (2006) reported a one-month test-retest reliability coefficient of r = .70 for Presence of Meaning and r = .73 for Search for Meaning. These values indicate that while meaning represents a relatively stable cognitive-existential disposition, it retains adequate sensitivity to register meaningful shifts induced by acute life events, therapeutic interventions, or identity transitions.

Factor Analysis

The structural composition of the MLQ has been rigorously probed using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During scale construction, candidate items derived from theoretical pools were subjected to principal-axis factoring with oblimin and varimax rotations. Across successive iterations, scree plots and parallel analyses consistently converged on a two-factor solution with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 (typically Factor 1 eigenvalue > 3.80; Factor 2 eigenvalue > 2.50), together accounting for greater than 60% of the total variance.

All five Presence items (1, 4, 5, 6, and reverse-coded Item 9) demonstrated substantial primary factor loadings ranging from .62 to .84 onto the Presence latent variable, with negligible cross-loadings (< .15) on the Search factor. Similarly, the five Search items (2, 3, 7, 8, and 10) demonstrated robust primary factor loadings ranging from .70 to .87 onto the Search latent variable, again without significant cross-loadings.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent validation studies have applied structural equation modeling (SEM) to evaluate the fit of the hypothesized two-factor orthogonal or correlated model against alternative competing models (such as a unidimensional one-factor model or a bifactor general-meaning model). CFA results decisively demonstrate superior fit for the two-factor model across diverse demographic cohorts:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values consistently range from .95 to .98, well exceeding the conventional .90/.95 thresholds for good fit.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Typically ranges between .94 and .97.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Estimates regularly fall between .045 and .065, reflecting close model fit with the population covariance matrix.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values consistently remain below .050.

In contrast, single-factor models exhibit unacceptable fit indices (e.g., CFI < .65, RMSEA > .18), proving unequivocally that the Presence of Meaning and the Search for Meaning cannot be reduced to a single latent variable.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ)
• Alternative Names: MLQ-10, Steger Meaning in Life Scale
• Developer: Michael F. Steger, Ph.D., alongside Patricia Frazier, Shigehiro Oishi, and Matthew Kaler
• Publication Year: 2006
• Constructs Measured: Subjective presence of existential meaning and purpose; active exploratory search for life purpose
• Administration Type: Self-report questionnaire (Paper-and-Pencil, Computerized, Mobile Assessment)
• Target Population: Adolescents (aged 12+), college students, working adults, clinical outpatients, geriatric populations
• Total Item Count: 10 items
• Scale Structure / Subscales:
  • Presence of Meaning Subscale (MLQ-P): 5 items (Items 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9)
  • Search for Meaning Subscale (MLQ-S): 5 items (Items 2, 3, 7, 8, and 10)
• Response Format: 7-point Likert-type scale:
  • 1 = Absolutely Untrue
  • 2 = Mostly Untrue
  • 3 = Somewhat Untrue
  • 4 = Can’t Say True or False
  • 5 = Somewhat True
  • 6 = Mostly True
  • 7 = Absolutely True
• Scoring Instructions:
  • Reverse Scoring: Item 9 is reverse-scored before computing totals or averages (1 = 7, 2 = 6, 3 = 5, 4 = 4, 5 = 3, 6 = 2, 7 = 1).
  • MLQ Presence (MLQ-P) Score: Sum or mean of Items 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9 (reverse-scored). Sum score range: 5 to 35. Higher scores indicate greater perceived meaning and life purpose.
  • MLQ Search (MLQ-S) Score: Sum or mean of Items 2, 3, 7, 8, and 10. Sum score range: 5 to 35. Higher scores indicate greater active searching, striving, or seeking for life purpose.
  • Note: A total aggregate score combining both subscales is theoretically invalid and should never be calculated; the two subscales are independent and must be interpreted separately or cross-tabulated into the 2×2 existential matrix.
• Estimated Completion Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Meaning in Life Questionnaire was officially published in 2006 in the Journal of Counseling Psychology by the American Psychological Association (APA). Dr. Michael F. Steger has made the MLQ open and accessible for non-commercial academic research, pedagogical purposes, and clinical assessment without licensing fees. Researchers, psychologists, educators, and clinicians are permitted to administer the scale provided that original authorship is acknowledged and proper scientific citation is maintained in all resulting presentations and publications.

For commercial applications, electronic medical system integrations, or institutional software deployment, inquiries should be directed to Dr. Michael F. Steger through his institutional portal at Colorado State University or his official academic website (www.michaelfsteger.com).

References

• Crumbaugh, J. C., & Maholick, L. T. (1964). An experimental approach to existential psychology: The Purpose in Life Test. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 20(2), 200–207. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(196404)20:2<200::aid-jclp2270200203>3.0.co;2-u
• Frankl, V. E. (1959). Man’s search for meaning. Beacon Press.
• Martela, F., & Steger, M. F. (2016). The three meanings of meaning in life: Distinguishing coherence, purpose, and significance. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(5), 531–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1137623
• Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069
• 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(1), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80
• Steger, M. F., Kawabata, Y., Shimai, S., & Otake, K. (2008). The search for meaning in life across cultures: A study of Japanese and American students. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 48(4), 498–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167807309971
• Steger, M. F., & Shin, J. Y. (2010). The relevance of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire to therapeutic practice: A look at the initial evidence. International Forum on Logotherapy, 33(2), 95–104.

Items of the Scale