Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ)

1. Abstract

The Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ) is a premier psychometric instrument developed by Michael F. Steger, Patricia Frazier, Shigehiro Oishi, and Matthew Kaler in 2006 to assess the multidimensional nature of human meaning-making. Unlike earlier legacy instruments that frequently conflated the subjective experience of meaning with psychological wellbeing, life satisfaction, or distress, the MLQ was explicitly engineered to measure two distinct, functionally independent components: the Presence of Meaning (the extent to which individuals perceive their lives as possessing purpose, significance, and overarching coherence) and the Search for Meaning (the dynamic, active orientation toward exploring, discovering, or augmenting purpose and significance). The instrument consists of 10 self-report items administered via an authentic 7-point Likert scale spanning from 1 (Absolutely Untrue) to 7 (Absolutely True). Extensively validated across clinical, educational, occupational, and cross-cultural cohorts, the MLQ exhibits robust psychometric properties, consistently demonstrating high internal consistency (with Cronbach’s α coefficients typically ranging between .81 and .88 across subscales), commendable test-retest stability over multiple assessment intervals, and an exceptionally invariant two-factor orthogonal or modestly correlated structure confirmed through rigorous exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Its dual-construct framework has fundamentally advanced existential psychology and positive psychology by demonstrating that searching for meaning is not merely an indicator of existential vacuum or crisis, but can operate as an open, healthy motivational process depending on an individual’s existing baseline presence of meaning.

2. Keywords

Meaning in Life Questionnaire, MLQ, Presence of Meaning, Search for Meaning, Existential Psychology, Positive Psychology, Purpose in Life, Psychometrics, Factor Structure, Subjective Well-Being

3. Authors

The Meaning in Life Questionnaire was authored by a team of prominent researchers in counseling, social, and personality psychology:

• Michael F. Steger, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology and Director of the Center for Meaning and Purpose at Colorado State University; Extraordinary Professor at North-West University, South Africa. His empirical career is widely recognized for operationalizing existential constructs within quantitative psychological research. Contact: Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.
• Patricia Frazier, Ph.D. — Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Psychology at the University of Minnesota. Her research centers on stress, coping, trauma, and post-traumatic growth.
• Shigehiro Oishi, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology at the University of Chicago (formerly at the University of Virginia). An expert in culture, social ecology, subjective well-being, and the psychologically rich life.
• Matthew Kaler, Ph.D. — Research psychologist affiliated with the University of Minnesota and Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, specializing in measurement models, quantitative psychometrics, and mental health outcomes.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire is to provide a clean, operationally refined, and psychometrically sound assessment of human meaning without contaminating the construct with emotional valence, general distress, or hedonic well-being. Historically, existential assessment relied upon instruments such as the Purpose in Life Test (PIL; Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1964) or the Life Regard Index (LRI; Battista & Almond, 1973). While pioneering, these earlier measures suffered from pervasive psychometric flaws, most notably item content overlap with depression, depressive affect, anxiety, and positive emotionality. Items inquiring about whether an individual wakes up feeling eager or finds life boring inevitably correlated strongly with clinical scales, artificially inflating relationships between meaninglessness and psychopathology. The MLQ was designed to remedy this methodological confound by asking strictly about cognitive and appraisal dimensions of meaning and purpose.

From a theoretical rationale, human beings not only experience meaning as an achieved state but also engage in an intentional quest to discern, construct, or reconstruct that meaning across developmental transitions. The MLQ purposively divides meaning into two operational tracks: Presence and Search. In doing so, it serves researchers who wish to trace how meaning operates across life-span changes, career adjustments, serious physical illness, or traumatic disruptions. In clinical and counseling settings, the MLQ serves as an indispensable diagnostic and evaluative tool. Clinicians can map clients across a 2×2 matrix of high versus low Presence cross-classified with high versus low Search. For instance, clients exhibiting low Presence paired with high Search often experience existential frustration, anxiety, or acute identity moratorium, demanding targeted existential-humanistic or logotherapeutic intervention. Conversely, individuals displaying high Presence alongside low Search reflect an achieved, stable existential framework, whereas individuals with high Presence and high Search exhibit an ongoing, expansive pursuit of personal growth and self-actualization.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct of meaning in life, as operationalized within the MLQ, denotes an individual’s subjective cognitive evaluation that their existence possesses significance, intelligibility, purpose, and value. The instrument deconstructs this overarching experiential reality into two core dimensions:

Presence of Meaning

The Presence of Meaning dimension assesses the degree to which an individual currently perceives their life as having significance, purpose, and identifiable direction. It captures an ontological state of experiential realization. Presence answers existential questions such as: “Does my life matter?”, “Do I know what my overarching aims are?”, and “Does the universe or my social milieu make sense to me?”. Within contemporary cognitive-existential models, Presence encompasses three interrelated components: comprehension (the sense that one’s life makes sense and exhibits coherence), purpose (having core life goals and directedness), and mattering (the evaluation that one’s existence has value and impact on the broader world). For example, an individual scoring high on Presence typically endorses statements reflecting clarity regarding what makes their life significant and reports feeling that their day-to-day existence is anchored to enduring values.

Search for Meaning

The Search for Meaning dimension measures an individual’s active, dynamic drive and cognitive-behavioral investment in finding, deepening, or clarifying purpose and significance in life. Search reflects a motivational state rather than a deficit condition. Historically, search was stigmatized in psychological literature as purely a consequence of alienation or an existential crisis. However, the MLQ construct acknowledges that the search for meaning can represent an exploratory, growth-oriented endeavor characteristic of open, intellectually curious, and self-actualizing individuals. An individual may simultaneously have a profound sense of purpose (high Presence) while continuously seeking novel ways to contribute, expand their horizon, or cultivate deeper spiritual or philosophical insight (high Search).

6. Theoretical Framework

The MLQ is anchored in the confluence of classical existential psychology, logotherapy, and modern positive psychology. Its foundational pillars stem from Viktor E. Frankl’s (1959) seminal thesis in Man’s Search for Meaning, which posits that the “will to meaning” is the primary human drive. Frankl argued that when the will to meaning is thwarted, an existential vacuum ensues, manifesting in apathy, boredom, and neurosis. However, Steger and colleagues recognized that Frankl’s formulations treated the search for meaning largely as a reaction to meaninglessness.

To establish a contemporary quantitative paradigm, Steger incorporated cognitive appraisal models and humanistic growth theories, such as those proposed by Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. According to this updated framework, human beings are active meaning-makers who construct mental schemas to organize experience, identify future trajectories, and affirm self-worth. Meaning is thus framed not merely as an external absolute waiting to be excavated, but as an ongoing cognitive construction that evolves across the lifespan. The theoretical framework explicitly decouples the ontological status (having meaning) from the motivational process (seeking meaning), postulating that the two operate through distinct psychological pathways, correlate differentially with personality traits (such as Neuroticism versus Openness to Experience), and relate to distinct neurological and physiological coping systems.

7. Validity

Extensive empirical investigations provide rigorous support for the convergent, discriminant, construct, and criterion validity of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire:

• Convergent Validity: In the foundational validation studies by Steger et al. (2006), the Presence of Meaning subscale correlated robustly and positively with measures of subjective well-being, including the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; r = .46 to .68), positive affect on the PANAS (r = .49), self-esteem (r = .41), and hope (r = .51). Conversely, Presence correlated inversely with depression as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; r = -.48) and negative affect (r = -.37). The Search subscale converged positively with openness to experience, rumination, existential questioning, and curiosity.
• Discriminant Validity: Discriminant validity was empirically demonstrated through multitrait-multimethod analyses and structural equation modeling. The correlation between the Presence and Search subscales is typically low to negligible in Western adult samples (ranging from r = -.19 to -.28 in the original validation study), confirming that they measure distinct constructs rather than polar opposites of a single continuum. Furthermore, factor analyses with measures of life satisfaction, social desirability, and religiousness showed that MLQ items loaded uniquely on their designated factors without cross-loading onto hedonic well-being scales.
• Predictive and Criterion Validity: High baseline scores on MLQ Presence longitudinally predict lower incidence of suicidal ideation, decreased substance use, enhanced adherence to medical regimens in chronic illness, and faster recovery from major life stressors. In workplace research, MLQ Presence predicts organizational commitment and work engagement, whereas MLQ Search moderates the relationship between occupational stress and burnout.

8. Reliability

The MLQ demonstrates exceptional internal consistency and temporal reliability across diverse population samples:

• Internal Consistency: In the initial validation cohorts (Steger et al., 2006), Cronbach’s α for the Presence of Meaning subscale ranged between .82 and .86. The Search for Meaning subscale yielded α coefficients between .86 and .88. Subsequent international adaptations (e.g., Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, German, Turkish, and Italian translations) have documented comparable internal consistency estimates, with α values consistently exceeding the .80 threshold. McDonald’s omega (ω) values have mirrored these figures, establishing structural internal reliability.
• Test-Retest Stability: Over a one-month test-retest interval, Steger et al. (2006) observed test-retest reliability coefficients of r = .70 for Presence of Meaning and r = .73 for Search for Meaning, indicating substantial stability while retaining sensitivity to genuine life transitions. Longer longitudinal evaluations (e.g., over 6 to 12 months) show enduring stability for Presence, whereas Search exhibits expected fluctuations across major developmental milestones (such as university graduation, career transition, or retirement).

9. Factor Analysis

The structural validity of the MLQ was established using rigorous exploratory factor analysis (EFA) followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA):

During initial scale development, an exploratory factor analysis using principal axis factoring with promax and varimax rotations was conducted on an initial pool of candidate items. The scree plot and eigenvalues decisively pointed to a two-factor solution, which accounted for over 60% of the total item variance. The five items designed to measure Presence loaded cleanly onto Factor 1 (loadings ranging from .67 to .84), while the five items representing Search loaded exclusively onto Factor 2 (loadings ranging from .64 to .88), with negligible cross-loadings (all cross-loadings < .20).

Confirmatory factor analyses in independent replication samples definitively confirmed the superiority of the hypothesized two-factor oblique model over a single-factor unidimensional model. Goodness-of-fit indices demonstrated exemplary fit across multiple studies: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥ .96, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) ≥ .95, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤ .055 (with 90% confidence intervals spanning .038 to .070), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) ≤ .045. Measurement invariance testing across gender, age brackets, and cross-cultural groups has verified configural, metric, and scalar invariance, proving that the instrument measures the identical psychological constructs across diverse demographics.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ)
• Authors: Michael F. Steger, Patricia Frazier, Shigehiro Oishi, and Matthew Kaler (2006)
• Constructs Measured: Presence of Meaning in Life; Search for Meaning in Life
• Administration Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or computerized self-report questionnaire
• Item Count: 10 items
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (ages 12 and older; standard validation in university and community adult samples)
• Completion Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes
• Response Scale: Authentic 7-point Likert 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
• Subscale Composition and Scoring Rules:
  • Presence of Meaning Subscale: Composed of items 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9. Note that Item 9 is reverse-scored: 1 = 7, 2 = 6, 3 = 5, 4 = 4, 5 = 3, 6 = 2, 7 = 1. Subscale score is the sum of these 5 items (theoretical score range: 5 to 35).
  • Search for Meaning Subscale: Composed of items 2, 3, 7, 8, and 10 (none reverse-scored). Subscale score is the sum of these 5 items (theoretical score range: 5 to 35).
  • Scores are kept separate for each subscale; a global total score is neither recommended nor theoretically meaningful.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Meaning in Life Questionnaire was published in 2006. It is copyrighted by Michael F. Steger and the American Psychological Association (APA). The instrument is made widely accessible and free of charge for non-commercial academic, clinical, and scientific research purposes. Researchers and clinicians are authorized to utilize the MLQ without individual licensing fees provided that proper academic attribution is credited to the original publication (Steger et al., 2006). For commercial use, inclusion in fee-for-service digital wellness applications, or for-profit organizational consulting, formal written licensing permissions must be secured through the copyright holder.

12. References

• Battista, J., & Almond, R. (1973). The development of meaning in life. Psychiatry, 36(4), 409–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1973.11023774
• 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(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.
• 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., & Kashdan, T. B. (2007). Stability and specificity of meaning in life and life satisfaction over one year. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8(2), 161–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9011-8
• Steger, M. F., Kawabata, Y., Shimai, S., & Otake, K. (2008). The meaningful life in Japan and the United States: Levels and correlates of meaning in life. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(3), 660–678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.09.003

13. Items of the Scale