Surviving and Thriving: Fundamental Social Motives Provide Purpose in Life

Abstract

Purpose in life (PIL) is often associated with grand achievements and existential beliefs, but recent theory suggests that it might ultimately track gainful pursuit of basic evolved goals. Five studies (N = 1,993) investigated the relationships between fundamental social motives and PIL. In Study 1, attribution of a life goal pursuit to disease avoidance, affiliation, or kin care motives correlated with higher PIL. Studies 2 and 3 found correlations of self-protection, disease avoidance, affiliation, mate retention, and kin care motives with PIL after controlling for potential confounds. Study 4 showed that writing about success in the status, mating, and kin care domains increased PIL. Study 5 replicated the effect for mating and kin care, but not for status. Results imply that fundamental motives link to PIL through a sense of progress, rather than raw desire. Overall, this set of studies suggests that pursuit of evolved fundamental goals contributes to a purposeful life.

Keywords

motivation purpose meaning well-being evolution

Purpose in life (PIL) optimizes human functioning (Boyle, Barnes, Buchman, & Bennett, 2009; Chun, Heo, Lee, & Kim, 2016; Hill & Turiano, 2014; Hill, Turiano, Mroczek, & Burrow, 2016; Hooker & Masters, 2016; Krause, 2009; see McKnight & Kashdan, 2009, for a review), but is often seen as elusive. Millions have purchased books about finding one’s purpose, suggesting that throngs of people are searching for PIL. Research has often focused on the ways in which supernatural beliefs can provide meaning and PIL. For example, Park (2013) have found that beliefs in a divine creator can imbue people with a sense of meaning. In addition to work locating meaning and purpose in the heavens, there is a new theoretical perspective that brings the sources of meaning more down to earth. This article tests the notion that pursuit of fundamental social motives leads to the sense that life is purposeful.

Theoretical Background: Why Fundamental Motives Would Influence PIL

We seek to build on new theoretical developments taking an evolutionary approach to meaning and purpose. Kenrick and Krems (2018) provided two key insights that underlie the current work. One is that evolution by natural selection has probably not shaped humans to experience well-being or meaning; rather, they explain,

from a general evolutionary perspective, feelings of subjective well-being ought to be systematically calibrated to one’s fitness. That is, I should feel subjective well-being when I am generally experiencing success in enhancing my fitness, and not when I am experiencing failure. (p. 4)

From this, for the purpose of the current work, we take the theoretical building block that evolved motives should exert a causal influence on PIL.

The second important theoretical building block we take from Kenrick and Krems is related to domain specificity. As they explain,

. . . humans are unlikely to have a general, all-purpose fitness calibration mechanism . . . Instead, we are likely to have a number of separate “systems” that gauge success in particular domains that correspond to the recurrent challenges and opportunities our ancestors faced . . . this might mean that we gauge success separately for satisfying nonsocial physiological needs, protecting ourselves from physical attacks, making and keeping friends, winning respect in our social groups, acquiring mates, keeping mates, and successfully caring for our offspring and other relatives. (p. 4)

From this, for the current purposes, we take the theoretical perspective that not all motives might promote PIL in the same ways.

The fundamental social motives framework posits that self-protection, disease avoidance, mate acquisition, mate retention, affiliation, status, and kin care concerns stimulate and organize downstream behaviors which are thought to increase the likelihood of successful reproduction (Neel, Kenrick, White, & Neuberg, 2016). From this evolutionary perspective, the feeling of PIL would have evolved because it signals that fitness-relevant motives are being satisfied (Kenrick & Krems, 2018; Krems, Kenrick, & Neel, 2017). Other researchers have suggested that PIL should signal successful fitness-positive behaviors and cognitions (e.g., Heintzelman & King, 2014a; Klinger, 1998). If PIL signals fitness-positive outcomes, then it likely reacts to pursuit of evolved goals, and so gainfully pursuing evolved goals would likely intensify the PIL “signal.” For example, a kin care motive might drive someone to build her nephew a swing set, satisfying the need to care for relatives and, in turn, increasing the feeling of PIL.

Which Fundamental Motives Would Influence PIL

PIL is part of meaning in life (MIL) and correlates with self-actualization (r = .49; Ebersole & Humphreys, 1991), so similar motivations might undergird all three constructs. When asked, people primarily associate self-actualization with status and affiliation motives and they primarily associate meaning and PIL with kin care and affiliation motives (Krems et al., 2017). Although these associations are intuitive, they may reflect the motives that would lead to PIL when pursued, namely, affiliation, kin care, and status motives, might lead to increased PIL among healthy and safe individuals.¹ Supporting this notion, belongingness (Lambert et al., 2013), family support (Lambert et al., 2010), satisfactory socioeconomic status (Kobau, Sniezek, Zack, Lucas, & Burns, 2010; Pinquart, 2002), and material income (Ward & King, 2016) predict MIL. Taken together, the evidence so far suggests that pursuit of affiliation, status, and kin care motives increase PIL.

Differentiating PIL From Other Constructs

Meaning in Life

Meaning and purpose have significant conceptual overlap (Baumeister, 1991; Frankl, 1963; George & Park, 2016; Martela & Steger, 2016), but they are not interchangeable (George & Park, 2013; Yalom, 1980). One might feel significance and coherence in life, but have no major objectives, and thus no purpose. Although purpose denotes having long-term future goals that organize and motivate behavior toward their eventual achievement (McKnight & Kashdan, 2009), some theorists argue that meaning is more about life making sense (e.g., Yalom, 1980). One longitudinal study of cancer survivors showed that Time 2 interpersonal support, pessimism, and optimism were each related to Time 1 purpose (controlling for meaning; p < .001), but not to Time 1 meaning (controlling for purpose; George & Park, 2013).

Self-Actualization

Self-actualization and PIL share some conceptual overlap in that they can reflect concern with meaningful goals, but they are quite distinct constructs. Self-actualization entails focusing on the present moment and being self-directed (Jones & Crandall, 1986; Knapp, 1976; Knapp & Knapp, 1978). PIL, on the contrary, entails a future focus and is agnostic regarding self-direction (e.g., McKnight & Kashdan, 2009; Ryff, 1989). This is not to say that self-actualization conflicts with future planning or collectivism but that PIL is a distinct construct. Ebersole and Humphreys (1991) found that the two constructs correlate at r = .49, suggesting not only significant overlap but also distinction.

The Current Research

This research investigates which basic evolved social motives might influence PIL when pursued. If PIL ultimately tracks pursuit of fitness-relevant goals, then pursuit of fitness-relevant goals should increase PIL. This article investigates which fundamental motives are more or less likely to influence PIL, and how. Five studies (N = 1,993) investigate the relationship between fundamental motives and PIL.

Study 1 (N = 386) examines the relations of PIL to the fundamental motives that people credit for driving a self-chosen important goal pursuit. Study 2 (N = 377) examines partial correlations between fundamental motives and PIL among college students. The preregistered Study 3 (N = 421) seeks to replicate the correlations of fundamental motives and PIL among a wider sample of adults, with controls for more potential confounds. The preregistered Study 4 (N = 408) tests for causality in three fundamental social domains. The preregistered Study 5 (N = 401) seeks to replicate the first experiment with pretested confound variables that assess randomization of confounds.

Study 1

This study builds on previous research (Krems et al., 2017) to eventually pursue objective causal relationships. Instead of measuring the motives people would pursue to find PIL, this study measures the motives people are pursuing and links them to current ratings of PIL. In this study, participants wrote about locomotion (progress) toward a self-chosen current life goal, rated their level of PIL, and then rated how much each fundamental motive drove them to pursue the goal they had written about. In this way, we see which individually pursued motives might correlate with self-reported PIL, edging us closer to possible causal links.²

Hypothesis 1: Attribution of written goals to kin care, status, or affiliation motives will positively relate to PIL.

Method

Participants

U.S. adults, N = 386; M (SD)_age = 35.32 (11.62); 45.9% male; 74.6% Caucasian/White; 10.1% African/Black; 5.2% East Asian; 10.2% remaining, participated through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) in exchange for US$0.50.

Procedure

Participants wrote about the most important life goal toward which they were currently making progress. This included naming the goal, identifying steps successfully taken toward accomplishing the goal, and identifying future steps that will be taken toward the same end. Following this, they moved a slider along a 0 to 100 scale to indicate their level of motivation to accomplish the stated goal.³ Then came the PIL measure, followed by religiosity and demographic measures. They were then shown exactly what they had written about their important life goal and asked to rate how much each of seven fundamental motives (each item contained descriptors; see Supplemental Materials) were driving their pursuit of this goal. Following this, all participants were debriefed, thanked, and paid.

Measures

PIL

Participants rated their level of agreement with each item from the Brief PIL measure (Hill, Edmonds, Peterson, Luyckx, & Andrews, 2016) on a 1 (not at all) to 6 (absolutely) Likert-type scale (α = .89). The items are as follows: There is a direction in my life, My plans for the future match with my true interests and values, I know which direction I am going to follow in my life, and My life is guided by a set of clear commitments.

Influence of Fundamental Motives

Participants rated how much each of the seven fundamental motivations influenced them to achieve their stated goal using a 1 (not at all) to 6 (extremely strongly) Likert-type scale, closely adapted from previous work linking fundamental motives and self-actualization (Krems et al., 2017; see Supplemental Materials). A single item captured each fundamental motive (e.g., Disease Avoidance—Keeping oneself healthy, avoiding illnesses).

Results

Zero-order correlations (Table 1) revealed that disease avoidance, affiliation, and kin care related positively to PIL. Our hypothesis that locomotion toward consciously kin care-driven and affiliation-driven goals would predict higher purpose was supported. The observed correlation of disease avoidance motives and PIL was not predicted. The predicted link with status did not emerge.

Table 1.

Study 1 Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations.

	SP	DA	Aff	MA	MR	St	KC	Motiv.	PIL
SP	3.74 (1.78)
DA	.630^†	3.47 (1.94)
Aff.	.370^†	.357^†	3.12 (1.57)
MA	.285^†	.305^†	.419^†	2.30 (1.60)
MR	.502^†	.452^†	.431^†	.407^†	3.67 (1.84)
St	.104*	.042	.385^†	.360^†	.236^†	3.20 (1.90)
KC	.349^†	.362^†	.295^†	.195^†	.354^†	.038	3.73 (1.95)
Motiv.	.062	.055	.020	−.190^†	−.019	−.030	.135∆	90.03 (12.85)
PIL	.058	.103*	.200 ^†	.018	.066	.053	.326 ^†	.363 ^†	4.61 (1.07)

Note. M (SD) on the diagonal; fundamental motive items scored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree); PIL scored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree); Motiv. scored from 1 to 100. Correlations of motives and PIL are in bold; mate retention statistics taken from separate analyses for those in a committed romantic relationship (n = 264); N = 386; SP = self-protection; DA = disease avoidance; Aff = affiliation; MA = mate acquisition; MR = mate retention; St = status; KC = kin care; Motiv. = motivation; PIL = purpose in life.

p < .05. ^∆p < .01. ^†p < .001.

Study 2

The previous study outlined potential links between the pursuit of fundamental goals and PIL, but several limitations loomed. First, Study 1 asked participants to report the underlying motivations driving their goal pursuits, potentially adding a second layer of self-report bias. For instance, it seems unlikely that a layperson would know and report that status concerns motivate pursuit of a graduate degree when pure intellectual curiosity seems to be the cause. For this reason, a hypothesis that status pursuits beget PIL has not been falsified. In addition, the previous study used single-item measures of unknown reliability.

There are known links between fundamental social motives and personality traits. Particular positive associations include (a) self-protection with neuroticism; (b) group affiliation with extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and sometimes openness; (c) status with extraversion; and (d) kin care with agreeableness, conscientiousness, and extraversion (Neel et al., 2016). One study linked the presence of MIL with lower neuroticism, but higher extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Steger, Kashdan, Sullivan, & Lorentz, 2008). Other studies have linked PIL with lower neuroticism and higher extraversion (King, Hicks, Krull, & Del Gaiso, 2006; Pearson & Sheffield, 1974, 1989), as well as with agreeableness, openness, and conscientiousness (Scheier et al., 2006).

Positive and negative affect might also explain the motive-PIL correlations. Both positive and negative emotionality have predicted the presence of MIL positively and negatively (Steger et al., 2008). In a daily experience study, both current and general positive and negative affect strongly and differentially predicted 2-day and general MIL, which was largely measured in terms of PIL. These items included “In life, I have very clear goals and aims,” “My personal existence is very purposeful and meaningful,” “I have clear goals and a satisfying purpose in life,” and “I regard my ability to find a meaning, purpose, or mission in life as being very great” (King et al., 2006). Scheier et al. (2006) found the abovementioned pattern of results held for two different measures of PIL: The Life Engagement Test and the Purpose in Life Scale (Ryff, 1989). Therefore, Study 2 used validated measures to connect fundamental social motives with PIL, controlling for affect and personality, without requiring participants to connect their goals and underlying motivations.

Hypothesis 1: Affiliation, status, and kin care motives will positively correlate with PIL, before, and after controlling for affect and personality.

Method

Participants

U.S. psychology students, N = 320; M (SD)_age = 19.35 (1.77); 50.6% female, 45% male; 40.6% Caucasian/White, 20.6% Latinx, 9.7% Asian-American, 7.8% East/Southeast Asian, 17.2% Other, and 4.1% Missing, participated online in exchange for course credit. Statistical power was estimated from the results of several multiple regression analyses of a pilot sample that included interactions (see Supplemental Materials). Thus, the Study 2 sample size was calculated to find r² = .02 (α = .05, β = .8, N = 305).

Procedure

Participants completed this study online through Qualtrics at a location of their choice. The items for this study were embedded in a larger survey that included various psychological measurements.

Materials

PIL

The Brief PIL instrument (Hill, Edmonds, et al., 2016) items were scored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and then averaged (α = .83).

Fundamental Motives

We administered the Fundamental Social Motives Inventory (Neel et al., 2016) on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) Likert-type scale (self-protection α = .86, disease avoidance α = .81, affiliation α = .76, status α = .72, mate acquisition α = .89, mate retention α = .57, and kin care α = .84). Mate retention items were only administered to those in a committed romantic relationship (n = 129). We did not analyze the independence motive nor the exclusion concerns motive (worry over being excluded socially) because the group affiliation motive best captured the construct of interest—the positive, appetitive desire to affiliate. Example items include “Being part of a group is important to me” (affiliation-group) and “I think about how to protect myself from dangerous people” (self-protection).

Personality

The Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) measured Big Five personality traits (extraversion, α = .73; agreeableness, α = .40; openness, α = .38; neuroticism, α = .58; conscientiousness, α = .55; Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003). Reliability is sacrificed for brevity with this measure.

Positive and Negative Affect

This was measured with the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS; positive α = .92; negative α = .89; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Participants rated their current affect levels (e.g., irritated, happy) from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely).

Analytic Plan

We investigated relationships using zero-order and partial correlations. Mate retention motives were only measured among those in a current romantic relationship (n = 129), and thus the statistics for that measure reflect a smaller sample size.

Results

Fundamental Motives and PIL

Zero-order correlations (Table 2) revealed positive relationships of PIL with self-protection, affiliation, status, and kin care. This correlation pattern held after controlling for affect and personality. Among those in a committed romantic relationship (n = 129), PIL was unrelated to mate acquisition (r = −.079, p>.16), but positively related to mate retention (r = .265, p < .01), controlling for affect and personality.

Table 2.

Study 2 Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations.

Zero-order correlations, means, and standard deviations
	SP	DA	Aff	Stat	MA	MR	KC	PIL
SP	4.93 (1.12)
DA	.251^†	4.10 (1.14)
Aff	.150**	−.069	4.89 (0.90)
Stat	.203^†	.158**	.284^†	4.65 (0.91)
MA	−.068	.065	.037	.060	3.90 (1.56)
MR	.259**	−.058	.147	.147	−.413^†	6.01 (0.92)
KC	.215^†	−.038	.301^†	.083	.004	.241**	5.76 (1.06)
PIL	.108 *	.048	.107 *	.246 ^†	−.023	.193 *	.142 **	3.78 (0.82)
Partial correlations
	SP	DA	Aff	Stat	MA	MR	KC
SP
DA	.409
Aff	.001	−.036
Stat	.147∆	.149∆	.222^†
MA	−.126*	−.121*	.151∆	.122*
MR	.187*	.255∆	−.031	.091	−.364^†
KC	.112*	.081	.189^†	−.010	.001	.159
PIL	.175∆	−.017	.169∆	.210 ^†	−.079	.265 ^†	.173 ^†

Note. M (SD) on the diagonal of zero-order correlation table; fundamental motives scored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree); PIL scored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree); correlations of motives and PIL in bold; N = 320; SP = self-protection; DA = disease avoidance; Aff = affiliation; Stat = status; MA = mate acquisition; MR = mate retention; KC = kin care; PIL = purpose in life; MR items given to those in a committed romantic relationship (n = 129); partial correlations reflect controlling for positive and negative affect, as well as personality.

p < .05. ^∆p < .01. ^†p < .001.

Discussion

The hypothesis was supported in that affiliation, status, and kin care motives correlated positively with PIL, before and after controlling for affect and personality. Self-protection and mate retention had unexpected partial correlations with PIL.

Study 3

Study 2 suggests associations of fundamental motives and PIL, but more potential confounds might explain the findings. Approach and avoidance motivations might influence endorsement of fundamental motives because these can be modeled as approach behaviors (e.g., mate seeking) or as avoidance behaviors (e.g., disease avoidance), meaning that two individuals with the same amount of a fundamental motive might score differently because the items have “baked-in” approach/avoidance qualities. Purpose generates approach behaviors (McKnight & Kashdan, 2009), suggesting that approach motivation itself might explain links between fundamental motives and PIL. The presence of MIL has been linked to a stronger reward responsiveness component of the behavioral activation system, as well as to harm avoidance (Steger et al., 2008).

Regulatory focus might explain the correlations. Individuals with a promotional regulatory focus—one which seeks to gain profits rather than avoid losses—might be more likely to endorse fundamental motives and a sense of knowing their life’s direction. Some fundamental motives are framed as preventing harm (e.g., disease avoidance), whereas others are framed as acquiring gains (e.g., mate acquisition). This makes a difference, as promotion-focused participants work longer at tasks that are aimed at gains than those aimed at preventing losses. The opposite pattern was observed for prevention-focused participants (Förster, Higgins, & Idson, 1998). PIL indicates appetitive pursuit of a gainful goal (McKnight & Kashdan, 2009), rather than prevention of losses, so promotion focus plausibly predicts more PIL, whereas prevention focus should have different relation.

Therefore, Study 3 investigated partial correlations of fundamental motives and PIL, controlling for affect and personality, as well as regulatory focus and approach/avoidance motivations. All measures, hypotheses, and analysis plans were preregistered (osf.io/ewpcn).

Hypotheses

Based on Study 2 and pilot data,⁴ we predicted that higher amounts of self-protection, affiliation, status, and kin care motives would predict higher PIL, before and after controlling for confounds.

Participants

The smallest noteworthy partial correlation of a fundamental social motive and PIL in Study 2 was r = .169. We powered this study to find r = .14 (α = .05, β = .8, N = 396). The final sample included 421 U.S. MTurk participants, 48.7% male, 50.6% female; M (SD)_age = 38.47 (12.34); 70.5% White, 9.3% Black, 6.2% Latinx, 5.7% East Asian, 2.4% South Asian, 5.9% Remainder, who participated for US$1.00.

Procedure

After giving informed consent, participants indicated their relationship status and number of children, then received the measures in random order, with items randomized within each scale. Upon completion, all participants were debriefed, thanked, and paid.

Measures

Reliability was low on some Study 2 measures, so we preregistered a rule that items with item-scale correlation less than r = .5 would be removed. Performing this action sometimes resulted in additional items falling below threshold, so we made a new rule to maximize scale reliability (which is partially a function of more items). When removing a weakly correlated item resulted in all remaining items reaching the r = .5 threshold, it stayed removed. If removing an item resulted in an additional item not reaching threshold when it had reached it before, we used the full scale.

Fundamental Motives

The Fundamental Social Motives Inventory (Neel et al., 2016) measured current levels of concern with self-protection (α = .88), disease avoidance (α = .82), affiliation (group, α = .86), status (α = .83),⁵ mate acquisition (α = .90), and kin care (α = .88). In addition, those in a relationship responded to the mate retention (general, α = .96) and mate retention (breakup concern; α = .80) subscales. Those with children also responded to the kin care (children; α = .78) subscale. Participants endorsed items on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale.

Positive and Negative Affect

This was measured with the PANAS (Positive α = .92; Negative α = .95; Watson et al., 1988). Participants rated their current affect levels (e.g., irritated, happy) from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely).

Regulatory Focus

We measured regulatory focus with the Promotion/Prevention Scale (Promotion α = .93, Prevention α = .90; Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002), measured from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).⁶ Example items include “I am focused on preventing negative events in my life” (prevention) and “When I see an opportunity for something I like, I immediately get excited” (promotion).

Personality

The Big Five Inventory measured personality traits (BFI-44; extraversion, α = .88; agreeableness, α = .81; openness, α = .86; neuroticism, α = .90; conscientiousness, α = .87; John & Srivastava, 1999). Participants indicated agreement with 44 “I see myself as someone who. . .” statements on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Example items include “Tends to find fault with others” (agreeableness, reverse-coded) and “Perseveres until the task is finished” (conscientiousness).

Approach and Avoidance Motivations

The 12-item Approach-Avoidance Temperament Questionnaire (Approach α = .84, Avoidance α = .87; Elliot & Thrash, 2010) measured approach and avoidance motivations. Items include “Thinking about the things I want really energizes me” (approach) and “I react very strongly to bad experiences” (avoidance).

PIL

Given that a life directed at goals was the precise construct of interest, and that no existing scale measuring this without inciting meaning were found, a three-item original scale was used (α = .94). Participants responded to the following statements on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely strongly): “I feel a sense of my life’s purpose,” “I feel a sense of my life’s direction,” and “I know what I am trying to accomplish in life.”

Results

Self-protection, affiliation, status, and kin care motives had zero-order correlations with PIL (Table 3). After controlling for all covariates, only affiliation, status, and kin care motives predicted higher amounts of PIL (Table 4). The studies thus far suggest a reliable and unique relationship of PIL with affiliation, status, and kin care motives. It appears that individuals motivated to pursue affiliation, status, and kin care motives tend to have more PIL.

Table 3.

Study 3 Zero-Order Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations.

	App	Avo	Prom	Prev	Pos	Neg	Agree	Consc	Extra	Neur	Open	SP	DA	Aff	Stat	MA	MR	KC	CC	PIL
Approach	5.19 (0.96)
Avoid	−.05	4.20 (1.38)
Promote	.74^†	−.10*	5.27 (1.05)
Prevent	−.09	.74^†	−.11*	4.16 (1.35)
Positive	.45^†	−.16^∆	.49^†	−.08	3.21 (0.95)
Negative	0	.50^†	−.01	.50^†	.11*	1.51 (0.79)
Agreeable	.34^†	−.33^†	.31^†	−.31^†	.23^†	−.39^†	3.81 (0.67)
Conscient.	.29^†	−.37^†	.35^†	−.40^†	.32^†	−.47^†	.51^†	4.01 (0.72)
Extravert	.40^†	−.22^†	.36^†	−.13^∆	.48^†	.01	.17^∆	.19^†	2.95 (0.89)
Neurotic	−.20^†	.77^†	−.24^†	.59^†	−.36^†	.46^†	−.40^†	−.48^†	−.34^†	2.57 (0.96)
Open	.37^†	−.11*	.40^†	−.12*	.21^†	−.11*	.21^†	.27^†	.25^†	−.17^∆	3.70 (0.71)
SP	.24^†	.33^†	.19^†	.40^†	.17^∆	.14^∆	.02	.03	.09	.12*	0.08	4.74 (1.23)
DA	.04	.19^†	.02	.20^†	.01	.03	−.01	.08	−.06	.09	0.02	.44^†	4.40 (1.21)
Aff	.46^†	−.11*	.42^†	−.05	.43^†	.01	.46^†	.27^†	.46^†	−.19^†	.19^†	.20^†	.01	4.76 (1.13)
Stat	.36^†	.04	.40^†	.14^∆	.44^†	.26^†	−.02	.06	.46^†	−.09	.08	.30^†	.10*	.45^†	4.11 (1.35)
MA	−.03	.10*	.05	.20^†	.07	.26^†	−.17^∆	−.25^†	.04	.07	.10*	.09	0	.04	.20^†	2.99 (1.63)
MR	.16^∆	−.20^∆	.11	−.27^†	−.08	−.47	.42	.40	−.03	−.11	.10	.03	.16^∆	.12*	−.17^∆	.49^†	2.91 (1.69)
KC	.25^†	−.03	.20^†	−.10*	.20^†	−.27^†	.49^†	.39^†	.14^∆	−.10*	.07	.17^∆	.19^†	.43^†	.09	−.18^†	.47^†	5.32 (1.32)
CC	.22^†	−.09	.12	−.17*	−.26^†	−.49^†	.40^†	.29^†	−.06	−.06	.05	.08	.15*	.09	−.21^†	−.49^†	.67^†	.43^†	6.14 (0.96)
PIL	.49^†	−.26^†	.57^†	−.25^†	.55^†	−.09	.31^†	.39^†	.43^†	−.46^†	.20^†	.11*	−.03	.42^†	.39^†	−.06	.06	.27^†	.05	5.17 (1.52)

Note. SP = self-protection; DA = disease avoidance; Aff = affiliation; Stat = status; MA = mate acquisition; MR = mate retention; KC = kin care; CC = child care; PIL = purpose in life; total N = 421; mate retention, N = 293; child care, N = 213. Approach = approach motivation; Avoid = avoidance motivation; Promote = promotion regulatory focus; Prevent = prevention regulatory focus; Positive = positive affect; Negative = negative affect; Agreeable = agreeableness; Conscient. = conscientiousness; Extravert = extraversion; Neurotic = neuroticism; Open = openness.

p < .05. ^∆p < .01. ^†p < .001.

Table 4.

Partial Correlations of Motives and PIL in Study 3.

	SP	DA	Aff	Stat	MA	MR	KC	CC
SP
DA	.38^†
Aff	.107*	.001
Stat	.196^†	.111*	.299^†
MA	.052	.01	.078	.14∆
MR	.118*	.207^†	−.001	−.053	−.439^†
KC	.118*	.185^†	.259^†	.084	−.037	.298^†
CC	.116	.177∆	0	−.096	−.437^†	.512^†	.28^†
PIL	.037	−.024	.11*	.129∆	−.077	−.02	.131∆	.077

Note. SP = self-protection; DA = disease avoidance; Aff = affiliation; Stat = status; MA = mate acquisition; MR = mate retention; KC = kin care; CC = child care; PIL = purpose in life. Correlations reflect statistical controlling of promotion/prevention regulatory focus, positive/negative affect, approach/avoidance motivation, and Big Five personality traits; total N = 421; mate retention N = 293; and child care N = 213.

p < .05. ∆p < .01. ^†p < .001.

Study 4

The fundamental question of this article is whether pursuit of fundamental social motives influences PIL. A well-powered experimental study that assessed the effects of all seven (or more) fundamental social motives was beyond resource limits, so three motives are tested now. These were chosen for different reasons. Kin care seemed to be the strongest correlate of PIL throughout these studies and the literature. Status has a reliable link with PIL, but not if participants are asked to draw their own motive connections. Put differently, when status motive is measured with the Fundamental Social Motives Inventory (Neel et al., 2016) and PIL is measured separately, there is a statistical association of status motive and PIL (Studies 2 and 3). When participants are asked to connect their own status motive to their own pursuits (Study 1) or to their conceptions of pursuing meaning and purpose (Krems et al., 2017), the association is much weaker. Participants are able to endorse status motives, but are unlikely to connect those status motives to their pursuits or to their own PIL. Mate acquisition has had negligible correlations with PIL ranging from slightly negative to slightly positive, but mate retention seems to have a strong correlation. This could be because acquiring mates does not affect PIL, which is unlikely, or because those motivated to acquire mates are currently single and, because having a mate increases PIL, singlehood (mate acquisition motive) predicts lower PIL. Therefore, Study 4 also tests the notion that having a mate begets PIL. This experiment compares a control condition to imagined absolute success in the domains of mate acquisition, kin care, and status.

Participants described full achievement in one of three fundamental social domains or in a control condition. Recent work has shown that picturing best possible domain-specific futures increases immediate motivation in that domain (Rawolle, Schultheiss, Strasser, & Kehr, 2017). Thus, picturing best possible futures in a given fundamental social domain should increase immediate levels of that fundamental motive. The control condition was to write about having seen an amazing movie (Burrow & Hill, 2013), addressing the potential concern that picturing a bright future merely increases positive affect, because imagining an amazing movie should do the same thing.

Hypotheses

We preregistered five hypotheses with detailed sample size calculations, methods, and analyses (osf.io/pr584) before collecting data. We expected kin care to have the largest effect on PIL, status to have a smaller effect, and mate acquisition to have no effect.⁷ Furthermore, religiosity was predicted to attenuate the effect of the status manipulation. For the sake of space and clarity, these hypotheses and results are fully reported in Supplemental Materials.

Method

Participants

We powered this study to find small effects (∆r² = .02; α = .05, β = .8, N = 408), based on a pilot study. Thirteen participants were removed for not meaningfully addressing the writing prompt and 33 were removed for failing one or more attention checks. The final sample contained 408 participants, 40.9% male, 59.3% female; M (SD)_age = 40.37 (13.06); 78.7% Caucasian/White, 6.8% African/Black, 5.9% East Asian, 3.7% Latinx, 2.5% South Asian, and 2.7% Remaining.

Procedure

MTurk workers in the United States completed a 200-word essay and a short survey for US$1.00. The 200-word suggestion was intended to maximize thoughtful responding. In practice, few participants actually produced 200 words, but any who meaningfully addressed the writing prompt were included in analyses, because reflection on the prompt was the main goal. The preregistered data collection protocol was “Responses that do not meaningfully address the prompt in detail will be deleted a priori.” This protocol not only enabled us to reject unconscientious or uncooperative human participants but also highlighted the possible presence of bots. Accepted and rejected responses showed a stark difference. Accepted responses reflected understanding of and elaboration on the writing prompt such that only an attentive human could have been the source. Rejected responses showing non-understanding of the prompt (often a copied piece of irrelevant text) were less than three sentences long. Reflection on the writing prompt was the main goal, and thus we looked for the evidence of significant reflection on the intended subject. The lead author removed all inappropriate responses before any other data were observed. All included cases showed clear evidence of an attentive human responder.

Participants responded to items assessing the moderator variables, including relationship status, number of children, mate acquisition motivation, status motivation, and kin care motivation. Religiosity was measured after the main independent variable (IV) and dependent variable (DV) so as not to risk priming religious thoughts or increasing socially desirable responding.

Participants then saw one of four randomly assigned writing conditions: movie, mate acquisition, status, or kin care. The movie condition was adapted from the control condition used in a previous study that ultimately manipulated PIL (Burrow & Hill, 2013). All conditions used similar writing prompt elements. The survey could not be advanced until the writing prompt had been displayed for 2 min. We reasoned that this would encourage reflection on the writing prompt and also more written output, with the goal that participants would immerse themselves in the imagined realm for enough time to affect PIL. A 20-min maximum survey completion time discouraged temporal gaps between item responses. Although we could not control what participants actually did, we reasoned that a 20-min limit struck a balance between encouraging thoughtful writing and discouraging temporal gaps. Participants rated current amounts of PIL immediately following written response submissions.

Materials

Written Manipulations

Participants saw one of four randomly assigned writing conditions: movie, mate acquisition, status, or kin care (see Supplemental Materials). The movie condition was adapted from the control condition used in a previous study that manipulated PIL, in which participants wrote about their favorite movie (Burrow & Hill, 2013). Our control condition was to not only include writing about a movie but also match the fundamental motive conditions by being retrospective and having positive valence. In the fundamental motive conditions, participants were asked to describe complete achievement in their assigned domain from a future perspective, having completely accomplished all they had wanted in that domain. For example, the kin care prompt read:

What does it mean to have the ideal family life? Imagine yourself in the future, having accomplished all of your family-related goals. Everything has gone as well as it possibly could. You worked hard and succeeded in building your ideal family. Now, write about what you imagined from the perspective of your future self. Describe what it is like having succeeded in the family realm.

Demographic Variables

Participants indicated whether they had children, how many children if so, and whether they were seeking more sexual/romantic partners, regardless of being in a relationship. The final demographics section included age and gender.

Fundamental Motives

The three motives represented in the writing prompts were assessed with three items closely adapted from previous research (Krems et al., 2017; see Supplemental Materials), measured on a 6-point Likert-type scale.

Religiosity

Three items (I am a religious person, I am a spiritual person, and I believe that some form of god or higher power exists) were measured on a 6-point Likert-type scale and then averaged (α = .89). This variable is included in supplemental analyses.

PIL

The intended construct was a current sense of PIL that might be amenable to a writing manipulation. We wanted to capture immediate feelings of PIL in a brief, but reliable measure, but could find no published scales of this precise construct. Based on current needs and previous measures of PIL (e.g., Ryff & Singer, 1998), we administered three items measured on a 6-point Likert-type scale and then averaged them (Right now, I feel a sense of my life’s purpose; Right now, I feel a sense of my life’s direction; Right now, I feel like I know what I am trying to accomplish in life; α = .94).

Hypotheses

Main Effects

Predictions were made based on earlier studies without covariates, which suggested that kin care writing would have a stronger effect than status writing. Correlations had suggested a near-zero effect for mate acquisition, even among the single, so we expected no effect for mate acquisition writing. Due to the unexpected results at that time, several preregistered hypotheses were ultimately premature in light of future findings. Germane hypotheses are reported here, the rest in Supplemental Materials.

Moderation

If the effect of writing about successful kin care grows significantly larger in tandem with higher preexisting kin care motivation, the suggestion is that feelings of accomplishment, as distinguished from raw motivation, influence PIL. A daily experience study showed a unique association of MIL and daily accomplishments, above daily affect effects (Machell, Kashdan, Short, & Nezlek, 2015). Satisfaction results from successful job performance (Locke & Latham, 1990). More task satisfaction results when the task is personally significant (Stone, 1986), so individuals with more motivation should feel greater sense of progress or accomplishment when that motivation is satisfied, relative to those with less motivation. The predicted moderations by preexisting motives would support that accomplishment or progress, as distinguished from raw motivation, influences PIL.

Hypothesis 1: The status and kin care conditions will each endorse higher PIL than the control condition.

Hypothesis 2: Higher preexisting levels of a fundamental motive will increase the effect of thinking about achievement in that domain. For example, higher premanipulation levels of kin care should moderate the effect of the kin care manipulation, such that it is larger at higher premanipulation kin care.

Results

Here, we report the distilled findings. The full preregistered protocol and ancillary demographic analyses are presented in Supplemental Materials, though we found no convincing evidence of the manipulations interacting with age or gender, which is surprising in light of current theory. The four conditions exhibited homogeneity of variance (Levene’s = .53, p = .63). Means of pretest individual fundamental motives were similar between the control group and each relevant condition (i.e., pretest kin care motivation means in the control condition and the kin care condition were not different). Zero-order correlations among fundamental motives and PIL (Table 5) echoed those in the previous studies, such that PIL correlated with kin care (r = .282) and status (r = .189), but not with mate acquisition (r = −.059).

Table 5.

Study 4 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations.

	Kin care	Status	Mate acquisition	PIL
Kin care	5.24 (1.08)
Status	−.027	3.11 (1.42)
Mate acquisition	−.170^†	.305^†	2.16 (1.57)
PIL	.282^†	.189^†	−.059	4.36 (1.24)

Note. All scales measured from 1 (not at all) to 6 (absolutely). N = 409. PIL = purpose in life.

†

p ≤ .001.

Hypothesis 1: This hypothesis was supported. Compared with controls, PIL was higher in the status group, t(405) = 2.98, Cohen’s d = .40, p = .003, and in the kin care group, t(405) = 4.01, Cohen’s d = .56, p < .001, even after a Bonferroni correction (status, p = .018; kin care, p < .001). Although not predicted at the time, the mating condition also increased PIL, t(405) = 2.64, Cohen’s d = .36, p = .009, Bonferroni p = .052. Figure 1 displays these results.

Figure 1.

PIL among the four writing groups in both experiments.

Hypothesis 2: This hypothesis was partially supported (Figure 2). Preexisting mating motive did not moderate the mating manipulation effect on PIL, b = −.041 [−.263, .182], p = .72. Status motive did moderate the status manipulation effect, b = .482 [.061, .903], p = .025. Kin care motive did not significantly moderate the kin care manipulation, b = .256 [−.175, .689], p = .24.

Figure 2.

Effects of writing about fundamental achievement depending on preexisting motives in Study 5.

Further Tests

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant effect of writing condition on PIL, F(3, 405) = 5.84, p = .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .041 (Figure 1). There was homogeneity of variance, Levene’s(3, 405) = .57, p = .63. However, PIL among the three fundamental motive conditions appeared quite uniform, so we conducted post hoc Tukey’s HSD tests. These revealed that there were no significant differences in PIL between the kin care, M (SD) = 4.64 (1.15), status, M (SD) = 4.46 (1.22), and mate acquisition conditions, M (SD) = 4.40 (1.21); all ps > .50. An exploratory contrast showed that PIL was higher in the combined motives conditions (1,1,1) than in the control condition (−3), t(405) = 3.94, p < .001. All three motive conditions increased PIL by statistically equal amounts relative to the control condition.

Discussion

This preregistered experiment revealed that mate acquisition, status, and kin care motives have statistically equal causal effects on PIL, in line with the partial correlations found in Study 3. Writing about complete fulfillment in the domains of mate acquisition, status, or kin care equally increased participant ratings of PIL.

Study 5

Study 5 (preregistered: osf.io/mjk5q) was aimed at replicating the results of Study 4 with some potential confounds measured before the manipulation to check whether randomization was satisfactory. It also included manipulation checks to test whether writing about complete satisfaction increased raw fundamental motivation, as a test of our interpretation of the Study 4 moderation-by-motivation findings, which was that a feeling of accomplishment or progress, as distinguished from appetitive motivation, influenced PIL.

Participants

Adults in the United States were recruited to complete a writing task and survey through Amazon’s MTurk. A post hoc power analysis of Study 4 suggested a sample of 364. We aimed to collect 400 participants. A priori rules for inclusion were the same as those in Study 4. Forty-two were removed for inappropriate responses and 24 for failed attention checks. The final sample included 401 participants, M (SD)_age = 35.62 (12.08); 39.7% male, 59.1% female; 65.6% White, 10% Black, 8.5% Latinx, 7% East Asian, 2.7% South Asian, 6.2% Remaining; 45.4% with children, 53.7% without children; 69.6% in relationship, 27.7% single.

Procedure

After giving informed consent, participants answered whether they were in a committed romantic relationship, then they responded to a 10-item personality measure, a 10-item positive affect measure, an eight-item promotional regulatory focus measure, and a seven-item approach motivation measure in random order. Following this, participants were randomly assigned to one of four writing conditions identical to Study 4. After writing for at least 2 min, participants answered a three-item PIL scale, manipulation checks, and then demographic items. All participants were debriefed, thanked, and paid.

Measures

Positive Affect

This was measured with the positive items from the PANAS (α = .93; Watson et al., 1988).

Regulatory Focus

We measured regulatory focus with the Promotion subscale of the Promotion/Prevention Scale (α = .92; Lockwood et al., 2002).

Personality

The TIPI measured Big Five personality traits with brevity (extraversion, α = .72; agreeableness, α = .37; openness, α = .44; neuroticism, α = .71; conscientiousness, α = .58; Gosling et al., 2003).

Approach Motivation

This was measured with the seven approach items from the Approach Temperament Questionnaire (ATQ; α = .87; Elliot & Thrash, 2010).

PIL

The same three-item scale from previous studies was used, although with slightly altered descriptors on the Likert-type scale (1 = not at all, 6 = an extremely large amount; α = .93).

Fundamental Motives

Participants were asked to rate their current motivation to achieve mating, status goals, and kin care goals, that is, “Taking care of or spending time with my (current or future) family members.” These functioned as manipulation checks. Regarding mating, single participants were asked how much they wanted to find a romantic/sexual partner. Participants in a committed romantic/sexual relationship were asked how much they wanted to find another romantic/sexual partner and also how motivated they were to maintain their current romantic/sexual relationship.

Hypothesis 1: The combined fundamental motive conditions would report higher PIL than the control condition. This preregistered hypothesis was to be tested with a comparison of the control (−3) with the three motive conditions (1, 1, 1).

Hypothesis 2: PIL would be not be statistically different among the three fundamental motive conditions. This preregistered hypothesis was to be tested with Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons.

Hypothesis 3: Each motive condition would report higher PIL than the control condition. This hypothesis was conceived after preregistration to clarify the results. Hypothesis 1 leaves open the question of individual motive effects on PIL. This is tested with simple comparisons of each motive condition with the control condition.

Hypothesis 4: Each motive manipulation would increase motivation to achieve in the associated domain. Mated participants may increase on mate retention or mate acquisition. They may also increase on mate acquisition, controlling for mate retention.

Results

Randomization checks showed that there were no preexisting group differences on any variable (p-value range: .12-.80) with the exception of extraversion (p = .018). A non-significant Levene’s test indicated homogeneity of variance across the four groups, F(3, 397) = 1.63, p = .183. The overall effect of condition on PIL was significant, F(3, 397) = 2.92, p = .034, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .022.⁸ See Figure 1 for displayed results.

Hypothesis 1: A planned comparison of the three combined motive conditions with the control condition turned up non-significant results in the expected direction, contrast = .64, t(397) = 1.60, p = .11. This lack of difference appeared to be driven by the status condition, so we conducted a post hoc comparison of kin care (1) and mating (1) with control (−2). This contrast was significant, contrast = .66, t(397) = 2.32, p = .021.

Hypothesis 2: Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons showed no significant differences between motive conditions (status vs. mating: p = .37; status vs. kin care: p = .12; mating vs. kin care: p>.99).

Hypothesis 3: Simple comparisons showed that the effects on PIL were non-existent in the status condition, nearly significant in the mating condition, and significant in the kin care condition (status: Cohen’s d = .01, p = .92; mating: Cohen’s d = .28, p = .076; kin care: Cohen’s d = .32, p = .025). There was no effect of status, but mating and kin care elicited similarly sized effects.

Hypothesis 4: Status motive was not significantly higher in the status condition than the combined other conditions, contrast = .59, t(397) = 1.12, p = .26. Mate acquisition was not higher in the mating condition than the combined other conditions, contrast = −.39, t(397) = −.67, p = .50, even among the romantically single, contrast = .18, t(107) = .15, p = .88. Those in a relationship did not report higher mate retention motive in the mating condition, either, contrast = .36, t(275) = .77, p = .44. Simple contrasts of individual motive conditions to the control condition also showed no effect of manipulations on their associated motives.

Discussion

Results mostly supported preregistered hypotheses, save for the lack of a status manipulation effect. This study replicated the earlier finding that writing about kin care and mating motives increased participants’ sense of PIL. However, status motives failed to affect PIL in any demographic group (see Supplemental Materials) or in general. Furthermore, the kin care and mating conditions endorsed nearly identical levels of PIL, though both these conditions endorsed notably higher PIL than the status condition. Manipulation checks showed that the increase in PIL is likely not due to increased raw motivation.

General Discussion

The results of these studies present the first causal evidence that thinking about satisfying at least some evolved social goals increases PIL. Study 1 showed that the extent to which individuals attributed their important goal pursuits to disease avoidance, affiliation, and kin care motives predicted higher PIL. Participants did not draw their own connections in Studies 2 and 3, instead completing validated measures of each construct. Study 2 showed that self-protection, affiliation, status, mate retention, and kin care motives predicted higher PIL among undergraduates, controlling for personality and affect. Study 3 showed that affiliation, status, and kin care motives predicted higher PIL, controlling for personality, affect, regulatory focus, and approach/avoidance motivation. Study 4 demonstrated that writing about accomplishment of status, mating, or kin care goals increases PIL about equally and that preexisting status and kin care motives made the manipulations of those domains more effective in boosting PIL. Study 5 replicated a causal effect of writing about mating and kin care, but not status. Post-tests showed that the manipulations did not affect amount of fundamental motivation per se, suggesting that motive satisfaction feelings may have increased PIL.

Previous work has shown that people with a tendency toward goal locomotion endorse more PIL than those who merely assess new goals (Vazeou-Nieuwenhuis, Orehek, & Scheier, 2017), leading researchers to theorize that working toward goals increases PIL. The current work supports this causal claim via two experiments.

The current findings both support and extend previous work connecting fundamental social motives with purpose. People not only believe that affiliation and kin care pursuits lead to PIL but also people pursuing these motivations tend to report higher PIL. Status motivations also predicted higher PIL in Studies 2 and 3. Studies 4 and 5 showed that writing about full accomplishment in mating, kin care, and sometimes status domains increases PIL. Taken together, the moderation-by-motivation finding of Study 4, the lack of motive manipulation in Study 5, and the success-eliciting nature of the writing prompts suggest that the feeling of progress or satisfaction in a fundamental domain may be how fundamental motives influence PIL.

Our work is also theoretically consistent with that of King and colleagues, but a fuller integration with their perspective will require more research. They make the important observation that

the psychological approach to the experience of meaning in life has focused on humanity’s search for an experience that seems simultaneously ineffable yet vital, essential but somehow potentially unattainable. Psychologists have often examined what happens when meaning is absent: When experiences feel senseless, when purpose is difficult to ascertain, when meaning must be created. (King, Heintzelman, & Ward, 2016, p. 211)

In line with this expressed need for a new perspective, we studied how everyday motives in everyday people foster a sense of PIL. Future research should look at how pursuing fundamental goals might influence the other facets of MIL.

Some of the motives we studied overlap with those in King and colleagues’ work, but not all of them. They note that MIL is correlated with social integration (King et al., 2016), which may be partially captured by the fundamental motives mate acquisition, mate retention, or kin care as all involve fostering social relationships. Ward and King (2016) found a relationship of MIL with socioeconomic status, which likely overlaps with the fundamental motive status. Other predictors of MIL, such as religious faith (e.g., King et al., 2016), likely correlate with kin care and affiliation (e.g., Saroglou, Delpierre, & Dernelle, 2004), but are far more distinct from fundamental motives.

With regard to causal directions, there are multiple possible perspectives. Kenrick and colleagues (Kenrick & Krems, 2018; Krems et al., 2017) have suggested that success in evolutionary domains can lead to well-being, and our work here shows fundamental motives influence PIL. However, it is also possible that meaning and purpose influence evolutionary success in ways that are not incompatible with what we have shown, but which represent a causal direction we did not focus on. King et al. (2016) proposed a

meaning-as-information Framework . . . [which] draws on the feelings-as-information hypothesis, which suggests that affective states provide information to direct behavior and cognitive processing in adaptive ways . . . feelings of meaning track the coherence of one’s environment to provide important information to direct processing in a situationally appropriate manner. This framework suggests that strong feelings of meaning can be adaptive because they emerge when one inhabits a stable environment that fosters positive functioning across many domains of life. (p. 214)

Future research should consider the multiple theoretically derived causal directions that may be possible.

Status and PIL

The current findings call for more nuanced research into the links between status pursuit and well-being, of which PIL is a part. Previous research has shown a negative link between status concerns—such as the needs for wealth and power—and subjective well-being (e.g., Kasser & Ryan, 1993). The current findings show that status concerns correlate with and can increase PIL, which is part of subjective well-being. Perhaps status motives link differently with other facets of subjective well-being than they do with PIL. Our measures of PIL captured a sense of goals and direction in life. Such long-term goals can link to status through a prestigious career (Morse, Neel, Todd, & Funder, 2015), meaningful social influence (e.g., altruism; Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006), or even moral virtue (Bai, Ho, & Yan, 2019). People may not see the potential eudemonic benefits of status pursuit, or perhaps their picture of high status only includes antisocial themes such as greed, so future research should measure status pursuit such that its true relationships with well-being facets emerge.

Current theory presents MIL (which includes PIL) as a rather common, though certainly non-trivial, achievement that can spring from everyday activities as well as from novel, perhaps more transcendent pursuits (Heintzelman & King, 2014b, 2018; King et al., 2016). Typically, affiliative social pursuits such as church attendance (e.g., Greenfield, Vaillaonnectionnt, & Marks, 2009), helping others (Schwartz, Keyl, Marcum, & Bode, 2009), and social connection (Bondevik & Skogstad, 2000) have been linked with PIL. The current findings not only support those relationships but also link PIL with status pursuit. However, it is important to avoid conflating social status pursuit with materialism or pursuit of power. A minority of participants in Study 5 wrote extensively about obvious wealth or power. Most described ways of gaining the respect of others, which often included moderate financial comfort and a respectable position. Some wrote about being the kindest or most generous person they could. Gaining the respect of others through virtue is a demonstrated pathway to higher social status (Bai et al., 2019). Taken together, these findings suggest that status pursuit can increase PIL, even for those not especially interested in dominance or material wealth. Future research may well focus on the ways that individuals’ means of status pursuit vary according to social environment or local culture. For instance, in cultures that discourage amassing private wealth, individuals may be more likely to seek status through virtuous acts.

It is possible that cohort effects exist, such that today’s working age adults are under more pressure to achieve high status, and thus the incremental achievement of status has stronger effects now than it did before. This means that the smaller association of PIL and status among the elderly could be due to age or cohort effects. Future research might well parse those relationships.

Limitations

The correlational findings may have been influenced by multidirectional effects or at least group differences. For example, those with more PIL might be more inclined to endorse some motives over others. Endorsement of PIL might reflect valuing of the construct, not necessarily having more PIL. That same group might be more likely to endorse the motivations that seem to fit with such a feeling, such as caring for others. That same group might find the conscious pursuit of status to be distasteful inasmuch as it represents a selfish or power-driven motive. The correlational studies left room for the potentially confounding effects of personal value systems.

Life history theory would predict that the associations between fundamental motives and PIL would depend on which motives are most salient to one’s ultimate reproductive fitness. For example, young adult males should be more likely to extract PIL from pursuing status than older females because status benefits the males’ reproductive fitness more directly (Kenrick & Krems, 2018; Krems et al., 2017). Our samples were not powered to properly investigate such nuanced effects, and so we do not report them here. This means that our results are generally informative, but do not fully engage with complementary evolutionary theory. Supplemental Materials contain the results of these tests, with the caveat that they were not fully powered.

Future Directions

Experiments manipulating imagined success in other fundamental social domains comprise the most obvious and pressing future direction for research. Although the current findings are valuable, whether more basic social goals such as self-protection or disease avoidance might increase PIL remains at issue. Although they might display weaker relationships with PIL than the other motives on broad analysis, stronger relations might emerge where such motives powerfully affect fitness. For example, some individuals’ fitness is under constant threat by dangerous others, and so progress toward staying safe might provide a stronger sense of PIL than among already safe individuals. Research on the effects of success in these less affiliative social domain stands to offer further important insight into the determinants and functions of PIL. Beyond that, interactive or additive causal effects seem plausible, such as the pursuit of good health increasing PIL more when it is a collaborative effort that also promotes affiliation.

Given the current finding of a reliable association between kin care motivation and life’s purpose, we might investigate exactly what kinds of kin care predict purpose and for whom. Some work has addressed nuanced kin care measures and PIL (e.g., Marks, 1998; Marks, Lambert, Choi, David, & Edgewood, 2017; Schwartz et al., 2009) and found some differential links that depend on who gives the care and who receives the care. In general, caring for the unhealthy is associated with higher concurrent stress, which in turn lowers PIL, especially when the caregiver is married to the receiver. Importantly, though, the lower PIL ratings might well reflect the impedance of other fundamental goal pursuits, meaning that caring for sick relatives might actually increase PIL when controlling for other goal-related losses.

Conclusion

The current findings suggest that pursuing evolved fundamental goals increases feelings of PIL. Specifically, individuals who are concerned with affiliation, kin care, and status tend to have more PIL. Participants who wrote about full achievement in domains of kin care and mating reported similar increases in PIL in two separate experiments. The current findings suggest that, in general, the desires to achieve different, fundamental social goals can provide perhaps similar amounts of PIL. The current work might seem uncomfortably reductionist to some because it claims that humans’ lofty perceptions of PIL partially reflect their pursuit of mundane social goals, but is that really reducing anything? Viewed differently, the findings suggest that humanity finds purpose in doing what comes naturally.

Supplemental Material

FM_PIL_PSPB_Supplemental_Materials_Sept21 – Supplemental material for Surviving and Thriving: Fundamental Social Motives Provide Purpose in Life

Supplemental material, FM_PIL_PSPB_Supplemental_Materials_Sept21 for Surviving and Thriving: Fundamental Social Motives Provide Purpose in Life by Matthew J. Scott and Adam B. Cohen in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Supplemental Material

Scott_OnlineAppendix – Supplemental material for Surviving and Thriving: Fundamental Social Motives Provide Purpose in Life

Supplemental material, Scott_OnlineAppendix for Surviving and Thriving: Fundamental Social Motives Provide Purpose in Life by Matthew J. Scott and Adam B. Cohen in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank Kathryn Johnson and Douglas Kenrick for comments on earlier drafts of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The Arizona State University Graduate and Professional Student Association funded some of the current research.

ORCID iD

Matthew J. Scott

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material is available online with this article.

Notes

References

Bai

G. C. C.

Yan

(2019). Does virtue lead to status? Testing the moral virtue theory of status attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/pspi0000192

Baumeister

(1991). The meanings of life. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Bondevik

Skogstad

(2000). Loneliness, religiousness, and purpose in life in the oldest old. Journal of Religious Gerontology, 11, 5-21. doi:10.1300/J078v11n01_03

Boyle

P. A.

Barnes

L. L.

Buchman

A. S.

Bennett

D. A.

(2009). Purpose in life is associated with mortality among community-dwelling older persons. Psychosomatic Medicine, 71, 574-579. doi:10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181a5a7c0

Burrow

A. L.

Hill

P. L.

(2013). Derailed by diversity? Purpose buffers the relationship between ethnic composition on trains and passenger negative mood. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1610-1619. doi:10.1177/0146167213499377

Chun

Heo

Lee

Kim

(2016). Leisure-related predictors on a sense of purpose in life among older adults with cancer. Activities, Adaptation & Aging, 40, 266-280. doi:10.1080/01924788.2016.1199517

Ebersole

Humphreys

(1991). The short index of self-actualization and purpose in life. Psychological Reports, 69, 550-550.

Elliot

A. J.

Thrash

T. J.

(2010). Approach and avoidance temperament as basic dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality, 78, 865-906.

Förster

Higgins

E. T.

Idson

L. C.

(1998). Approach and avoidance strength during goal attainment: Regulatory focus and the “goal looms larger” effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1115-1131. Retrieved from https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/1998-11403-002

10.

Frankl

(1963). Man’s search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy. New York, NY: Washington Square Press.

11.

George

L. S.

Park

C. L.

(2013). Are meaning and purpose distinct? An examination of correlates and predictors. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8, 365-375. doi:10.1080/17439760.2013.805801

12.

George

L. S.

Park

C. L.

(2016). Meaning in life as comprehension, purpose, and mattering: Toward integration and new research questions. Review of General Psychology, 20, 205-220. doi:10.1037/gpr0000077

13.

Gosling

S. D.

Rentfrow

P. J.

Swann

W. B.

Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504-528.

14.

Greenfield

E. A.

Vaillant

G. E.

Marks

N. F.

(2009). Do formal religious participation and spiritual perceptions have independent linkages with diverse dimensions of psychological well-being? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 50, 196-212. doi:10.1177/002214650905000206

15.

Hardy

C. L.

Van Vugt

(2006). Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32: 1402-1413. doi:10.1177/0146167206291006

16.

Heintzelman

S. J.

King

L. A.

(2014a). (The Feeling of) meaning-as-information. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 153-167. doi:10.1177/1088868313518487

17.

Heintzelman

S. J.

King

L. A.

(2014b). Life is pretty meaningful. American Psychologist, 69, 561-574. doi:10.1037/a0035049

18.

Heintzelman

S. J.

King

L. A.

(2018). Routines and meaning in life. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45, 688-699. doi:10.1177/0146167218795133

19.

Hill

P. L.

Edmonds

G. W.

Peterson

Luyckx

Andrews

J. A.

(2016). Purpose in life in emerging adulthood: Development and validation of a new brief measure. Journal of Positive Psychology, 11, 237-245. doi:10.1080/17439760.2015.1048817

20.

Hill

P. L.

Turiano

N. A.

(2014). Purpose in Life as a predictor of mortality across adulthood. Psychological Science, 25, 1482-1486. doi:10.1177/0956797614531799

21.

Hill

P. L.

Turiano

N. A.

Mroczek

D. K.

Burrow

A. L.

(2016). The value of a purposeful life: Sense of purpose predicts greater income and net worth. Journal of Research in Personality, 65, 38-42. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2016.07.003

22.

Hooker

S. A.

Masters

K. S.

(2016). Purpose in life is associated with physical activity measured by accelerometer. Journal of Health Psychology, 21, 962-971. doi:10.1177/1359105314542822

23.

John

O. P.

Srivastava

(1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In Pervin

L. A.

John

O. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102-138). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

24.

Jones

Crandall

(1986). Validation of a short index of self-actualization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 63-73.

25.

Kasser

Ryan

R. M.

(1993). A dark side of the American dream: Correlates of financial success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 410.

26.

Kenrick

D. T.

Krems

J. A.

(2018). Well-being, self-actualization, and fundamental motives: An evolutionary perspective. In Diener

Oishi

Tay

(Eds.), Handbook of well-being. Salt Lake City, UT: DEF Publishers.

27.

King

L. A.

Heintzelman

S. J.

Ward

S. J.

(2016). Beyond the search for meaning: A contemporary science of the experience of meaning in life. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 211-216. doi:10.1177/0963721416656354

28.

King

L. A.

Hicks

J. A.

Krull

J. L.

Del Gaiso

A. K.

(2006). Positive affect and the experience of meaning in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 179-196. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.179

29.

Klinger

(1998). The search for meaning in evolutionary perspective and its clinical implications. In Wong

(Ed.), The human quest for meaning: A handbook of psychological research and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 27-50). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203146286.

30.

Knapp

R. R.

(1976). Handbook for the Personality Orientation Inventory. San Diego, CA: Edits Publishers.

31.

Knapp

R. R.

Knapp

(1978). Conceptual and statistical refinement and extension of the measurement of actualizing: Concurrent validity of the Personal Orientation Dimensions (POD). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38, 523-526.

32.

Kobau

Sniezek

Zack

M. M.

Lucas

R. E.

Burns

(2010). Well-being assessment: An evaluation of well-being scales for public health and population estimates of wellbeing among US adults. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 2, 272-297.

33.

Krause

(2009). Meaning in life and mortality. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, B, 64, 517-527. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbp047

34.

Krems

J. A.

Kenrick

D. T.

Neel

(2017). Individual perceptions of self-actualization: What functional motives are linked to fulfilling one’s full potential? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 1337-1352. doi:10.1177/0146167217713191

35.

Lambert

N. M.

Stillman

T. F.

Baumeister

R. F.

Fincham

F. D.

Hicks

J. A.

Graham

S. M.

(2010). Family as a salient source of meaning in young adulthood. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 367-376.

36.

Lambert

N. M.

Stillman

T. F.

Hicks

J. A.

Kamble

Baumeister

R. F.

Fincham

F. D.

(2013). To belong is to matter: Sense of belonging enhances meaning in life. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1418-1427.

37.

Locke

E. A.

Latham

G. P.

(1990). Work motivation and satisfaction: Light at the end of the tunnel. Psychological Science, 1, 240-246. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00207.x

38.

Lockwood

Jordan

C. H.

Kunda

(2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and social psychology, 83, 854-864. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.4.854

39.

Machell

K. A.

Kashdan

T. B.

Short

J. L.

Nezlek

J. B.

(2015). Relationships between meaning in life, social and achievement events, and positive and negative affect in daily life. Journal of Personality, 83, 287-298. doi:10.1111/jopy.12103

40.

Marks

N. F.

(1998). Does it hurt to care? Caregiving, work-family conflict, and midlife well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 951-966.

41.

Marks

N. F.

Lambert

J. D.

Choi

David

Edgewood

(2017). Transitions to caregiving, gender, and psychological well-being: A prospective U.S. national study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 657-667.

42.

Martela

Steger

M. F.

(2016). The three meanings of meaning in life: Distinguishing coherence, purpose, and significance. Journal of Positive Psychology, 11, 531-545. doi:10.1080/17439760.2015.1137623

43.

McKnight

P. E.

Kashdan

T. B.

(2009). Purpose in life as a system that creates and sustains health and well-being: An integrative, testable theory. Review of General Psychology, 13, 242-251. doi:10.1037/a0017152

44.

Morse

P. J.

Neel

Todd

Funder

(2015). Renovating situation taxonomies: Exploring the construction and content of fundamental motive situation types. Journal of Personality, 83, 389-403. doi:10.1111/jopy.12111

45.

Neel

Kenrick

D. T.

White

A. E.

Neuberg

S. L.

(2016). Individual differences in fundamental social motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 887-907. doi:10.1037/pspp0000068

46.

Park

C. L.

(2013). Religion and meaning. In Paloutzian

R. F.

Park

C. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 357-379). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

47.

Pearson

P. R.

Sheffield

B. F.

(1974). Purpose-in-life and the eysenck personality inventory. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 30, 562-564. doi:10.1002/1097-4679

48.

Pearson

P. R.

Sheffield

B. F.

(1989). Psychoticism and purpose in life. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 1321-1322. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(89)90245-6

49.

Pinquart

(2002). Creating and maintaining purpose in life in old age: A meta-analysis. Ageing International, 27, 90-114.

50.

Rawolle

Schultheiss

O. C.

Strasser

Kehr

H. M.

(2017). The motivating power of visionary images: Effects on motivation, affect, and behavior. Journal of Personality, 85, 769-781. doi:10.1111/jopy.12285

51.

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, 1069-1081. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069

52.

Ryff

C. D.

Singer

(1998). The role of purpose in life and personal growth in positive human health. In Wong

P. T. P.

Fry

P. S.

(Eds.), The human quest for meaning: A handbook of psychological research and clinical applications (pp. 213-235). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

53.

Saroglou

Delpierre

Dernelle

(2004). Values and religiosity: A meta-analysis of studies using Schwartz’s model. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 721-734. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.10.005

54.

Scheier

M. F.

Wrosch

Baum

Cohen

Martire

L. M.

Matthews

K. A.

Zdaniuk

(2006). The life engagement test: Assessing purpose in life. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 29, 291-298. doi:10.1007/s10865-005-9044-1

55.

Schwartz

C. E.

Keyl

P. M.

Marcum

J. P.

Bode

(2009). Helping others shows differential benefits on health and well-being for male and female teens. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 431-448. doi:10.1007/s10902-008-9098-1

56.

Steger

M. F.

Kashdan

T. B.

Sullivan

B. A.

Lorentz

(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. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00484.x

57.

Stone

E. F.

(1986). Job scope-job satisfaction and job scope-job performance relationships. In Locke

E. A.

(Ed.), Generalizing from laboratory to field settings (pp. 189-206). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

58.

Vazeou-Nieuwenhuis

Orehek

Scheier

M. F.

(2017). The meaning of action: Do self-regulatory processes contribute to a purposeful life? Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 115-122. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.040

59.

Ward

S. J.

King

L. A.

(2016). Poor but happy? Income, happiness, and experienced and expected meaning in life. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 7, 463-470.

60.

Watson

Clark

L. A.

Tellegen

(1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

61.

Yalom

I. D.

(1980). Existential psychotherapy. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.47 MB

0.79 MB