University of Missouri-Columbia.
Am Psychol. 2015 Sep;70(6):575-6. doi: 10.1037/a0039483.
Replies to the comments made by Friedman (see record 2015-39598-012), Jeffery & Shackelford (see record 2015-39598-013), Brown & Wong (see record 2015-39598-014), Fowers & Lefevor (see record 2015-39598-015), Hill et al. (see record 2015-39598-016) on the current authors' original article, "Life is pretty meaningful," (see record 2014-03265-001). The current authors thank the comment authors for their efforts, and acknowledge their dedication to what is often a difficult and inscrutable construct, meaning in life. One lesson the current authors have learned from these reactions is that a review of self-report responses to items like "My life is purposeful and meaningful" cannot encompass the entirety of the meaning-in-life landscape. In this reply, the current authors reflect on aspects of the commentaries, highlighting what they can garner about meaning in life from the portion of it that is reflected in phenomenological experience and represented in self-reports: These are the data they have. The current authors first consider three methodological concerns that bear on whether these data are informative (at all) and then they consider more conceptual critiques.
回复 Friedman(见记录 2015-39598-012)、Jeffery & Shackelford(见记录 2015-39598-013)、Brown & Wong(见记录 2015-39598-014)、Fowers & Lefevor(见记录 2015-39598-015)和 Hill 等人对作者原创文章“生活很有意义”(见记录 2014-03265-001)的评论。作者感谢评论者的努力,并承认他们致力于生活意义这一往往是困难和难以理解的概念。作者从这些反应中学到的一个教训是,对“我的生活有目的和意义”等项目的自我报告反应的审查不能涵盖生活意义的全貌。在这篇回复中,作者反思了评论的各个方面,强调了他们可以从反映在现象学经验和自我报告中的生活意义部分中获得的关于生活意义的认识:这些是他们拥有的数据。作者首先考虑了三个方法学问题,这些问题关系到这些数据是否具有信息性(无论如何),然后他们考虑了更多的概念性批评。