According to the meaning-making model (Park, 2010), there are two levels at which people can experience a sense of meaning: global meaning and situational meaning. Global meaning—or meaning in life—refers to the belief and the sense that the world and one’s place within it are coherent and comprehensible, and that one is progressing toward value-consistent goals. It is derived through individuals’ global beliefs (i.e., assumptions about how the world functions, self and identity, human nature, and relationships; Park, 2017a), and global goals (i.e., life aspirations, values, and strivings; Park, 2010). These beliefs and goals form the frameworks through which people interpret and evaluate their life as whole and their experiences in general (Silberman, 2005). One’s sense of global meaning develops within a broader cultural context (Austin and Vancouver, 1996). As such, it is not surprising to see that culture can exert effects on global meaning (Tweed and Conway, 2006) and meaning-making processes (Neimeyer et al., 2002). Drawing on terror management theory, an individual’s cultural worldview offers a framework for understanding the world and our place in it. As such, heightening the endorsement of one’s cultural worldview helps to provide a sense of meaning that offers symbolic protection against the existential terror of one’s own mortality.

Situational meaning refers to an individual’s interpretation of the importance or significance of a particular experience (i.e., how one construes an event), and its impact on one’s values and beliefs (Park and Folkman, 1997; Lazarus, 2006). As with global meaning, situational meaning may also be associated well-being (Park and Gutierrez, 2012). For example, appraising events as controllable and benign is related to less distress following negative events (Aldwin et al., 2007; Frazier et al., 2011). Although much research has concentrated on the appraisal of negative events and its impact on stress (e.g., Lazarus and Folkman, 1984), few studies have explicitly examined whether such processes enhance or reduce both situational and global meaning. However, examining both in tandem is necessary for a complete understanding of how meaning is experienced holistically (Park, 2017b).

Moreover, several researchers have criticized the use of generic measures of “meaning” or “purpose” in studies of MIL (Leontiev, 2013; Heintzelman and King, 2014; King and Hicks, 2021). There is an emerging consensus that meaning is a multidimensional construct composed of at least three facets (George and Park, 2016, 2017; Martela and Steger, 2016). Firstly, a sense of coherence—which entails making sense of and comprehending one’s experiences (Reker and Wong, 2012). Secondly, a sense of purpose—which involves the motivation to pursue valued life goals (Kasser and Ryan, 1993; McGregor and Little, 1998; Rijavec et al., 2011). Lastly, a sense of significance or mattering refers to the feeling that one’s life is worth living and that one’s existence is important and of value in the world (George and Park, 2014; King et al., 2016).

Furthermore, while previous studies of the tripartite model (coherence, purpose, and mattering) have focused on global meaning (e.g., Costin and Vignoles, 2020), few have examined facet-level meaning at the situational level (e.g., Tov et al., 2021). However, such work is necessary for a better understanding of how processes that occur at the situational level may contribute to the formation of meaning at the global level. As such, this study sought to examine how meaning can be extracted from negative experiences—at both the global and situational levels. In addition, we also assessed overall meaning and specific facets of meaning.

Broadly, negative experiences—from the mundane (e.g., arguments) to the severe (e.g., death of a loved one)—are often associated with a diminished sense of meaning (Krause, 2005; Vohs et al., 2019). When individuals experience a distressing event, the situational meaning of the event (e.g., its impact on current goals, or one’s understanding of what happened and why) can violate their global beliefs. This violation—which usually stems from the individual’s perception of their loss of control, comprehensibility, or predictability of the world (Park and Folkman, 1997; Davis and Camille, 2000; Heine et al., 2006)—may compromise the integrity of their global meaning system (Janoff-Bulman, 1989; Park et al., 2016) and challenge their understanding of themselves and the world. For example, religious individuals may generally believe that God is good and kind. However, following the loss of a significant other, bereaved individuals may interpret death as willed by God’s intention. This could lead them to question God’s character, possess negative feelings toward God, and choose to abandon their faith (Burke et al., 2014). This change in global meaning (e.g., faith) due to the situational meaning (e.g., appraisal of the death of a significant other) highlights that a negative experience can lead to a discrepancy between meaning at both levels.

It is not always the case that changes in situational meaning provoke changes in global meaning. According to the meaning-making model, when there are discrepancies between situational and global meaning, individuals are often motivated to reduce them through the meaning-making process (Janoff-Bulman and McPherson Frantz, 1997; Park, 2010). This can involve an attempt to cognitively process and understand the negative situation in a different way, or review and rework their beliefs so that the interpretation of the situation aligns with their global meaning (Klinger, 1998; Lepore et al., 2000). Of particular relevance to the present study is the process of assimilation. Through assimilation, individuals may change how they appraise the situation (i.e., situational meaning) so that it is aligned to their global assumptions (Park, 2010). They can also reframe it to arrive at a more integrated understanding of the experience by identifying some redeeming features (Tedeschi and Calhoun, 2004). Indeed, following adversity, some individuals have reported positive change as a result of the experience (Park et al., 1996; Tedeschi and Calhoun, 1996). These include changes in sense of self (e.g., increased self-reliance and a sense that the experience “that did not kill you made you stronger”; Berger and Weiss, 2003, p. 28).

However, current literature on coping and meaning has often focused on major life events, while scant research has examined common daily adversities. Notwithstanding the significant role these major life events can play, they are relatively uncommon in a person’s lifespan (Serido et al., 2004; Frans et al., 2005). In contrast, common daily adversities, which can also disrupt core beliefs (O’Neill et al., 2004; Cann et al., 2011), and initiate meaning-making and growth are largely unexplored (Aldwin and Levenson, 2004; LoSavio et al., 2011). Though smaller in magnitude, negative daily events may disrupt people’s meaning systems particularly when they occur in valued life domains. For instance, negative daily social and achievement events are associated with less MIL on the day they occur (Machell et al., 2015). As such, we aimed to examine meaning-making processes in the context of negative daily experiences.

Positive reappraisal is a form of meaning-focused coping which involves reinterpreting events or situations in a positive manner (Folkman and Moskowitz, 2000; Helgeson et al., 2006). It includes elements such as attempting to find benefits in the experience (Garnefski et al., 2001)—by searching for positive meaning among the negativity (Nowlan et al., 2015). This is in line with the concept of existential positive psychology, where meaning-focused coping strategies can promote a dialectical approach toward negative experiences (Wong et al., 2021)—by imbuing adversities with redeeming, positive features. The individual may come to believe something valuable or beneficial has been gained from the situation, such as enhanced wisdom or personal growth (Folkman and Moskowitz, 2000). Through reappraisal, people may come to believe that adversity has helped them to acquire wisdom and patience (e.g., Stainton and Besser, 1998); learn important life skills (e.g., Kimura and Yamazaki, 2013); appreciate the value of life (e.g., Chou et al., 2013); create a new sense of purpose by re-evaluating and identifying important values, relationships, and commitments (e.g., Park and Folkman, 1997); or test and thereby strengthen one’s faith and spirituality, and improve social relations (Cywińska, 2018).

As a coping strategy, positive reappraisal can be distinguished from primary stress appraisals such as the extent to which an event is important for one’s well-being and the potential for harm or growth (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Primary stress appraisals are particularly relevant in anticipation of demanding events (Peacock and Wong, 1990); in contrast, coping strategies are typically engaged in the aftermath of the event. How people cope with negative events depends in part on their perception of what can be done about it or its controllability (secondary appraisal; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984; Peacock and Wong, 1990). If the source of distress can be removed, one might engage in problem-focused coping and attempt to resolve the situation. If the situation cannot be resolved, one might engage in emotion-focused coping, which aims at reducing the negative affect associated with the stressful event. For example, a person might exercise or watch television to reduce their stress. Although positive reappraisal might be seen as a form of emotion-focused coping, Folkman (1997) (Folkman and Moskowitz, 2000) observed that by finding positive meaning in the experience, individuals more typically experienced higher levels of positive affect (PA) whether or not negative affect was mitigated. PA, in turn, has beneficial effects on coping resources and subsequent appraisals and coping efforts (Tugade and Fredrickson, 2004).

By facilitating PA, positive reappraisal may initiate a set of processes that further enhance meaning both by (i) broadening attention and improving meaning-readiness (e.g., King et al., 2006) and (ii) reducing the effects of NA and enabling more adaptive behaviors. Whereas dysfunctional and avoidant coping strategies can result in greater stress and worry (Ongaro et al., 2021), several studies show that inducing PA can facilitate greater engagement with negative experiences. For instance, recalling past acts of kindness led to less avoidance of negative information in an unrelated domain (Reed and Aspinwall, 1998). Success on an initial task also made participants more willing to examine weaknesses or failures on subsequent tasks (Trope and Pomerantz, 1998). More recently, a large-scale study (N = 12,243) found that meaning-centered coping was negatively associated with negative emotional states such as depression (including meaningless in life, low positive affectivity, and hopelessness), anxiety and stress during the COVID-19 pandemic (Eisenbeck et al., 2021). These findings suggest a feedback process in which PA and positive reappraisal reinforce each other while undoing the effect of NA on meaning-making.

Although positive reappraisal can be an effective coping strategy, recent studies suggest that the successful use of reappraisal requires several potentially taxing cognitive processes, including the ability to override a prepotent response (Ortner et al., 2016; Troy et al., 2018; Vieillard et al., 2020). For example, in emotionally intense situations, reappraisal may be difficult as it is challenging to override the original negative appraisal of the situation with the new, less emotionally evocative reappraisal (Ortner et al., 2016). Moreover, when given the choice to implement either reappraisal or distraction, participants were less likely to use reappraisal for high intensity emotional images (Sheppes et al., 2011, 2014; Shafir et al., 2015). The use of reappraisal is associated with decreased self-control resources when used in high-intensity situations (Sheppes and Meiran, 2008; Ortner et al., 2016); perhaps this explains why people are less likely to use reappraisal in such situations (Sheppes et al., 2014). An implication of these findings is that positive reappraisal may not be as functional in high-intensity situations where it could be most needed. Hence, it is important to find ways to facilitate the usage of positive reappraisal in these negative situations. One possibility is to attenuate the emotional intensity of the experience by altering one’s perspective on the event.

Self-distancing is the process of stepping back from one’s own thoughts, beliefs, and feelings (Teasdale et al., 2002). Reflecting on adversity from a self-distanced perspective can facilitate constructive reasoning and effective regulation of negative emotions. It entails visualizing the event from a “fly on the wall” observer perspective—for example, by reflecting on it using third-person language (Grossmann and Kross, 2014; Kross and Ayduk, 2017; Nook et al., 2017). In contrast to the self-distanced perspective, people often adopt an egocentric view when focusing on past emotional experiences (Nigro and Neisser, 1983). This self-immersed (first-person) perspective draws attention to the concrete features of one’s experience (i.e., the specific course of events and emotions), thereby “reliving” the experience all over again (Robinson and Swanson, 1993; McIsaac and Eich, 2004). Indeed, when adopting a first-person perspective, individuals can experience high levels of emotional arousal, which may then hinder their ability to engage in cognitive analysis (Nigro and Neisser, 1983; Robinson and Swanson, 1993). However, a third-person perspective may draw attention to additional features of the situation—leading to appraisals that attenuate negative affect (Robinson and Swanson, 1993; McIsaac and Eich, 2004). This would allow individuals to focus on the broader context of the event and reconstrue their experience (Mischel et al., 1989; Trope and Liberman, 2003).

Individuals’ attempts to make meaning of a negative event often fail because they adopt a self-immersed perspective (Wang et al., 2019). However, when encouraged to think about the negative experiences from a psychologically distant perspective, individuals could reflect on them more constructively (Bruehlman-Senecal et al., 2016). This could be explained by the construal level theory which proposes that global and abstract construals are more inclusive than concrete construals, thus facilitating the inclusion of multiple stimuli into broader categories (Trope and Liberman, 2003, 2010; Schwarz and Bless, 2007; Förster et al., 2008). Because adopting a self-distanced perspective leads people to think about events in more abstract terms (Libby and Eibach, 2011)—and because abstraction accentuates the broader meaning of any given similarity—it is suggested that abstract levels of construals may facilitate meaning-making by making it easier to assimilate experiences into the global meaning system. Indeed, individuals who were able to envelop negative experiences (e.g., divorce, trauma)—into a broad understanding of their life’s narrative or into a broader explanatory framework—gained a sense that their lives have meaning (Pals, 2006; Bauer et al., 2008). Similarly, when people pictured an event from the third-person perspective, construed it abstractly, and integrated it with its broader context, they maintained a sense of meaning in the face of beliefs violations (Libby and Eibach, 2011). Thus, self-distancing could facilitate the assimilation of experiences into one’s global meaning system. By positioning the event within the grander scheme of one’s life, individuals may then arrive at a fuller understanding of the meaning of the event.

In addition to a main effect on situational meaning, self-distancing could potentially improve the effectiveness of positive reappraisal for enhancing meaning. This might be especially so when the negative experience is emotionally intense—requiring individuals to override an initially strong negative reaction with one that is more positive (Ortner et al., 2016). We hypothesized that positive reappraisal could be more effective in combination with a self-distanced perspective. By inviting a broader perspective on the event and reducing its emotional intensity, individuals may better identify positive implications from the experience—thereby enhancing the situational meaningfulness of the event.

As the meaning-making model suggests, global and situational meanings can both shape the present and future goals of a person as well as their overarching worldviews (Park, 2010)—analysis of one kind of meaning without the other would be incomplete. Indeed, scant research has investigated whether processes can jointly influence both global and situational meaning. In addition, despite the vital implications of daily experiences (O’Neill et al., 2004; Cann et al., 2011), little research has examined their effects on one’s sense of meaning (situational and global). Furthermore, given the multidimensional nature of meaning, the use of many generic and unidimensional measures may present oversimplified views of the underlying relationships between meaning and negative experiences (Martela and Steger, 2022). As such, a more nuanced approach is required to examine how each facet of meaning changes accordingly to meaning-making attempts.

To this end, the research goals are three-fold. First, we aimed to examine whether positive reappraisal and self-distancing—either in combination or alone—were effective approaches to enhancing meaning. Second, we explored whether the effectiveness of the meaning-making coping strategies on meaning would change according to the intensity of the negative experience. Third, we sought to investigate the extent to which meaning-making attempts influence individuals’ sense of situational meaning, global meaning, or both—across the three facets (i.e., coherence, purpose, and significance).

We designed a writing task following previous studies that have successfully manipulated either positive reappraisal and self-distancing. For example, participants who engaged in positive reappraisal reported more benefits from the experience such as finding a redeeming value in a loss of their loved ones (Folkman, 1997). In other studies, participants who were instructed to write using third-person (vs. first-person) pronouns reported more psychological distance and experienced fewer negative emotions (e.g., rejected, angry, and sad; Ayduk and Kross, 2010; Kross et al., 2011). Fewer studies have attempted to manipulate both positive reappraisal and self-distancing together. However, a recent study examining lower intensity cognitive interventions that target both affective (via self-distancing) and cognitive processes (via perspective broadening) found that, as compared to the control group, participants in the training condition reported lesser distress during the processing of negative experiences and reductions in residual symptoms of depression (Travers-Hill et al., 2017).

A total of 462 participants were recruited through the local university subject pool system (M_age = 21.28, SD_age = 1.91). The majority of the sample identified as female (78.7%; N = 364); 82.3% reported to be born in Singapore (N = 380); 79.9% identified Chinese as their ethnicity (N = 369). Table 1 summarizes the descriptive statistics of our sample. All participants received research participation credit upon completion of the study.

The experiment conducted was a 2 (self-distanced vs. self-immersed) × 2 (positive reappraisal vs. reflection only) between-subjects design.

After providing informed consent, participants completed measures of dispositional optimism and dispositional gratitude—which served as covariates. They were then asked to identify a distressing/upsetting experience and write a sentence about it—before indicating their perceived initial intensity of experience. They were then assigned randomly to one of the four writing task conditions. After the writing task, participants completed a series of questions about their affective experience, psychological distance, perceived sense of benefits, situational meaning, and global meaning. Finally, they completed a set of demographic questions before debriefing (Table 2).

In line with previous studies, our findings indicate that the tendency to engage in a self-immersed reflection (i.e., without positive reappraisal) results in diminished sense of meaning (Ayduk and Kross, 2010). In the attempt to understand the negative experience, individuals often engage in rumination. This perpetuates their fixation on self-relevant negative content—and may subsequently reduce their sense of meaning. However, we found that either adopting a self-distanced perspective or engaging in positive reappraisal buffered individuals against the reduced levels of meaning after a negative experience. Importantly, the effectiveness of one approach versus the other depends on (i) the emotional intensity of the experience; as well as (ii) which component of meaning one seeks to enhance.

Although positive reappraisal is generally an effective meaning-making strategy across a range of negative experiences, it may not be the most effective strategy for those that are highly emotionally charge. In particular, if individuals are struggling to make sense of such experiences or are questioning whether their own existence has value—reflecting on the experience in a distanced manner might be more helpful than attempting to reappraise it in a more positive manner. This observation could improve the development of meaning-based intervention. For example, expressive writing tasks could be structured in specific ways to promote one’s sense of meaning rather than simply divulging one’s deepest thoughts and feelings. Instead of delineating the concrete terms of the experience, a self-distanced reflection of the experience could foster additional insights and closure. Moreover, engaging in these writing tasks in the form of either positive reappraisal, or distanced reflection in one’s daily life is both time-and cost-efficient to make meaning out of negative events. Other approaches that seek to alter negative emotional responses through self-compassion may also help people develop new meanings from daily negative experiences (e.g., Sebri et al., 2022). Therefore, applying strategies that seek to reduce NA as well as promote an alternate perspective of the negative experiences may be especially critical in promoting meaning in long-term distressing circumstances such as COVID-19 pandemic (Eisenbeck et al., 2021; Wong et al., 2021).

The self-distancing manipulation may have exerted a small effect and thus be ineffective in certain ways. For example, distanced participants did not differ significantly from immersed participants in their emotional reactivity—as assessed by the extent to which participants re-experienced the negative emotions they felt in the original event. This is inconsistent with prior studies (e.g., Kross et al., 2005; Ayduk and Kross, 2008; Kross and Ayduk, 2009). One factor could be the type of emotion elicited by the negative experience. Prior studies instructed participants to write about specific experiences (e.g., one that elicited anger or sadness). In contrast, the present study simply instructed participants to write about a negative experience. Hence, other negative emotions such as guilt and shame could also be evoked—which self-distancing may not be as effective in regulating (Katzir and Eyal, 2013). Further, although distanced participants reported lower levels of NA and PA on average than immersed participants, this difference was not statistically significant. It is important to note that affect was measured using the PANAS, which mainly consists of adjectives representing high activation and arousal (Jovanović, 2015; Jovanović et al., 2019). Affect characterized by low to medium arousal may not be adequately measured using PANAS. Thus, future research should consider measures that fully capture the diversity of positive and negative feelings, across varying arousal levels (for a review see Tov et al., 2023).

We also recognize that the implications and generalizability of this study are limited by the use of a predominately female Singaporean student sample. While it is not the primary aim of the study to examine the moderating role of gender, recent studies have revealed gender differences vis-à-vis positive reappraisal. Specifically, positive reappraisal was negatively associated with depressive symptoms more so in females than in males (Duarte et al., 2015). In contrast, we found that positive reappraisal strengthened the perception of benefits in females and increased greater positive affect in males (Footnote 3). Thus, future research should consider the role of gender when developing meaning-based interventions.

In addition, cultural differences in the effects of positive reappraisal and self-distancing can be explored. A recent study suggested that dialecticism—the assumption that contradictory information can coexist (Peng and Nisbett, 1999)—may influence the ability to appraise negative situations more positively (Chen and Lee, 2021). For instance, East Asians (higher in dialecticism) were able to focus more on the positive aspects of negative events, as compared to North Americans who tended to hold more polarizing attitudes (Peng and Nisbett, 1999; Grossmann et al., 2014). Hence, individuals endorsing high dialectical thinking may face lesser resistance and difficulty in engaging positive reappraisal—as it involves the integration of positives (i.e., perceived valued gains) with the negatives (i.e., distressing reality). This could explain why we did not find an additional benefit of reappraising negative experiences from a distanced perspective, given our Singaporean sample. It is possible that in cultures where positive reappraisal may be more difficult, its effectiveness could be aided by practicing it from a third-person perspective.