The Evolutionary Pattern of Meaning in Life Among University Students and Its Association with Depressive Symptoms

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2025.03.009

Abstract

Abstract:

This study aimed to clarify the causal relationship between meaning in life and depression symptoms, and to explore the evolutionary patterns of meaning in life, and assess its impact on the incidence of depressive symptoms. A two-wave longitudinal study with a 12-month interval was conducted among 896 university students recruited from one university. The Meaning in Life Questionnaire and the Depression Symptom Screening Questionnaire were administered. The findings showed that: 1) Meaning in life at T1 negatively predicted depression symptoms at T2. Conversely, depression symptoms at T1 did not significantly predict meaning in life at T2. 2) The evolutionary patterns of meaning in life from T1 to T2 could be categorized into four groups: sustained low meaning, meaning improvement, meaning reduction, and sustained high meaning. The incidence of depressive symptoms in these four groups was 13.00%, 5.00%, 12.00%, and 4.00%, respectively. 3) The evolutionary patterns of meaning in life significantly impacted the incidence of depressive symptoms. Compared to the sustained high meaning group, both the sustained low meaning group and the meaning reduction group exhibited significantly higher rates of depression symptoms. The results suggest that psychological health education in universities should focus on individuals with sustained low meaning or meaning reduction, and that enhancing meaning in life serves as an effective intervention approach to reducing the incidence of depression symptoms among university students.

Key words: university students, meaning in life, depression symptoms, cross-lagged analysis, latent profile analysis

摘要：

为阐明生命意义感与抑郁症状之间的因果关系，探讨生命意义感的演变模式及其对抑郁症状检出率的影响，研究采用生命意义感问卷与抑郁症状筛查问卷对896名某高校大学生进行了间隔12个月2轮次的纵向调查。结果发现：(1)T1生命意义感可负向预测T2抑郁症状，而T1抑郁症状并不能显著预测T2生命意义感。(2)高校大学生生命意义感由T1到T2的演变模式可分为4类：持续低意义组、意义提升组、意义降低组和高意义稳定组，其抑郁症状检出率分别为13.00%、5.00%、12.00%、4.00%。(3)生命意义感演变模式对抑郁症状检出率存在显著影响。与高意义稳定组相比，持续低意义组和意义降低组的抑郁症状检出率显著较高。结果提示高校心理健康教育应重点关注持续低意义与意义降低群体，提高生命意义感是减少大学生抑郁症状检出率的有效干预途径。

关键词: 高校大学生, 生命意义感, 抑郁症状, 交叉滞后分析, 潜在剖面分析

Yongju YU, Min HE. The Evolutionary Pattern of Meaning in Life Among University Students and Its Association with Depressive Symptoms[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2025, 23(3): 354-360.

于永菊, 何敏. 高校大学生生命意义感的演变模式及其与抑郁症状的关联[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2025, 23(3): 354-360.

Figures/Tables 5

References 0

	陈曼曼, 胜利, 曲姗. 病人健康问卷在综合医院精神科门诊中筛查抑郁障碍的诊断试验. 中国心理卫生杂志, 2015, 29 (4): 241- 245. DOI
	陈雨濛, 张亚利, 俞国良. 2010~2020中国内地大学生心理健康问题检出率的元分析. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30 (5): 991- 1004. DOI
	李幼东, 彭雨涵, 王紫妍, 邓屹杉, 周婉玉, 刘政, 武育颖. 焦虑抑郁情绪对大学生生命意义感的影响: 无聊倾向性的中介作用. 中华行为医学与脑科学杂志, 2021, 30 (7): 634- 639. DOI
	廖娟娟, 郑亚楠, 黄亮明, 魏泽红. PHQ-2-C、CES-D和BDI-Ⅱ-C在筛查青少年抑郁障碍中的应用研究. 国际精神病学杂志, 2017, 44 (1): 25- 28.
	麻超, 刘亚飞, 于海波, 武晓光. 高中生生命意义感的类别特征及与孤独感的关系: 基于潜在剖面分析. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21 (2): 216- 223. DOI
	汪瑞, 李书琴, 金正格, 钱燕, 蒋志成, 李若瑜, 张诗晨, 万宇辉. 大学生亲密伴侣暴力演变及其与抑郁症状的关联. 中国心理卫生杂志, 2022, 36 (11): 930- 936. DOI
	王鑫强, 游雅媛, 张大均. 生命意义感量表中文修订版在大学生中的信效度及与心理素质的关系. 西南大学学报(自然科学版), 2016, 38 (10): 161- 167.
	王玉, 吴欣洋, 甘怡群. 大学生生命意义寻求和视角转换对抑郁的影响——有中介的调节模型. 中国心理卫生杂志, 2015, 29 (11): 858- 863. DOI
	张荣伟, 李丹. 如何过上有意义的生活?——基于生命意义理论模型的整合. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26 (4): 744- 760.
	赵娜, 马敏, 辛自强. 生命意义感获取的心理机制及其影响因素. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25 (6): 1003- 1011.
	周浩, 龙立荣. 共同方法偏差的统计检验与控制方法. 心理科学进展, 2004, 12 (6): 942- 950. DOI
	Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, white women. Health Psychology, 2000, 19 (6): 586- 592. DOI
	Appel, J. E., Park, C. L., Wortmann, J. H., & van Schie, H. T. Meaning violations, religious/spiritual struggles, and meaning in life in the face of stressful life events. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2020, 30 (1): 1- 17. DOI
	Baquero-Tomás, M., Grau, M. D., Moliner, A. R., & Sanchis-Sanchis, A. Meaning in life as a protective factor against depression. Frontiers in Psychology, 2023, 14, 1180082. DOI
	Czyżowska, N., & Gurba, E. Does reflection on everyday events enhance meaning in life and well-being among emerging adults? Self-efficacy as mediator between meaning in life and well-being. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2021, 18 (18): 9714. DOI
	Dewitte, L., Vandenbulcke, M., & Dezutter, J. Meaning in life matters for older adults with Alzheimer’s disease in residential care: Associations with life satisfaction and depressive symptoms. International Psychogeriatrics, 2019, 31 (5): 607- 615. DOI
	He, Y. Q., Chen, M. H., Guo, S. P., & Liang, J. Y. An analysis of the latent profile and influencing factors of the sense of the meaning of life amongst medical students post-COVID-19 from the perspective of Chinese collectivist culture. Current Psychology, 2024, 43 (20): 18790- 18799. DOI
	Kleftaras, G., & Psarra, E. Meaning in life, psychological well-being and depressive symptomatology: A comparative study. Psychology, 2012, 3 (4): 337- 345. DOI
	Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: Validity of a two-item depression screener. Medical Care, 2003, 41 (11): 1284- 1292. DOI
	Kuk, A., & Guszkowska, M. Changes and predictors of the sense of meaning in life in polish university students participating in psychological workshops Communication–Forgiveness–Love. Journal of Religion and Health, 2019, 58 (4): 1095- 1106. DOI
	Lee, J. E., Kahana, E., Kahana, B., & Zarit, S. The role of goal and meaning in life for older adults facing interpersonal stress. Aging & Mental Health, 2022, 26 (1): 149- 158.
	Lubke, G., & Muthén, B. O. Performance of factor mixture models as a function of model size, covariate effects, and class-specific parameters. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2007, 14 (1): 26- 47. DOI
	McCabe, P. J., & Christopher, P. P. Symptom and functional traits of brief major depressive episodes and discrimination of bereavement. Depression and Anxiety, 2016, 33 (2): 112- 119. DOI
	Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (2003). Social causes of psychological distress (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
	Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2007, 14 (4): 535- 569. DOI
	Skaletz, C., & Seiffge-Krenke, I. Models of developmental regulation in emerging adulthood and links to symptomatology. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2010, 2010 (130): 71- 82. DOI
	Steger, M. F. Making meaning in life. Psychological Inquiry, 2012, 23 (4): 381- 385. DOI
	Steger, M. F. (2017). Meaning in life and wellbeing. In M. Slade, L. Oades, & A. Jarden (Eds.), Wellbeing, recovery and mental health (pp. 75–85). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
	Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. The Meaning in Life Questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 2006, 53 (1): 80- 93. DOI
	Tein, J. Y., Coxe, S., & Cham, H. Statistical power to detect the correct number of classes in latent profile analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2013, 20 (4): 640- 657. DOI
	Yang, C. C. Evaluating latent class analysis models in qualitative phenotype identification. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 2006, 50 (4): 1090- 1104.
	Yu, Y. J., He, M., & Li, K. X. Effect of socioeconomic status on emerging adults’ positive mental health: Roles of relative deprivation, thwarted belongingness, and meaning in life. Current Psychology, 2024, 43 (41): 31969- 31977. DOI
	Yue, X. D., Cheung, C. K. J., Hiranandani, N. A., & Feng, J. Dispositional predispositions of depression, life satisfaction, and life meaning among Chinese college students. International Journal of Psychology & Behavior Analysis, 2018, 4, 142.

测量时间	模型	LL	AIC	BIC	aBIC	Entropy	BLRT (p)	LMR (p)	类别概率(%)
T1	1C	−14480.06	29000.11	29096.08	29032.56
	2C	−13500.33	27062.66	27211.40	27112.95	0.841	<0.001	<0.001	63.84/36.16
	3C	−12964.57	26013.14	26214.65	26081.27	0.925	0.026	0.027	65.07/4.24/30.69
	4C	−12690.78	25487.55	25741.84	25573.52	0.910	0.015	0.016	57.25/9.71/3.68/29.35
	5C	−12490.03	25108.05	25415.12	25211.87	0.888	0.048	0.050	1.67/10.49/11.83/49.44/26.56
T2	1C	−14574.72	29189.44	29285.40	29221.88
	2C	−13450.20	26962.40	27111.13	27012.68	0.857	<0.001	<0.001	61.83/38.17
	3C	−13034.49	26152.97	26354.49	26221.10	0.852	0.010	0.011	24.78/49.00/26.23
	4C	−12731.41	25568.83	25823.12	25654.80	0.876	0.071	0.073	3.02/25.05/44.77/27.17
	5C	−12541.33	25210.67	25517.73	25314.48	0.880	0.157	0.160	3.68/16.18/41.74/31.25/7.14

测量时间	模型	LL	AIC	BIC	aBIC	Entropy	BLRT (p)	LMR (p)	类别概率(%)
T1	1C	−14480.06	29000.11	29096.08	29032.56
	2C	−13500.33	27062.66	27211.40	27112.95	0.841	<0.001	<0.001	63.84/36.16
	3C	−12964.57	26013.14	26214.65	26081.27	0.925	0.026	0.027	65.07/4.24/30.69
	4C	−12690.78	25487.55	25741.84	25573.52	0.910	0.015	0.016	57.25/9.71/3.68/29.35
	5C	−12490.03	25108.05	25415.12	25211.87	0.888	0.048	0.050	1.67/10.49/11.83/49.44/26.56
T2	1C	−14574.72	29189.44	29285.40	29221.88
	2C	−13450.20	26962.40	27111.13	27012.68	0.857	<0.001	<0.001	61.83/38.17
	3C	−13034.49	26152.97	26354.49	26221.10	0.852	0.010	0.011	24.78/49.00/26.23
	4C	−12731.41	25568.83	25823.12	25654.80	0.876	0.071	0.073	3.02/25.05/44.77/27.17
	5C	−12541.33	25210.67	25517.73	25314.48	0.880	0.157	0.160	3.68/16.18/41.74/31.25/7.14

项目		T2
项目		Class21：低意义组	Class22：高意义组
T1	Class11：低意义组	442，49.30%	130，14.50%
T1	Class12：高意义组	112，12.50%	212，23.70%

项目		T2
项目		Class21：低意义组	Class22：高意义组
T1	Class11：低意义组	442，49.30%	130，14.50%
T1	Class12：高意义组	112，12.50%	212，23.70%

	演变模式	OR	95%CI	p
模型1	高意义稳定组	1.00
	持续低意义组	3.41	[1.65, 7.02]	0.001
	意义提升组	1.09	[0.38, 3.14]	0.871
	意义降低组	2.96	[1.23, 7.16]	0.016
模型2	高意义稳定组	1.00
	持续低意义组	3.48	[1.67, 7.26]	0.001
	意义提升组	1.13	[0.39, 3.26]	0.828
	意义降低组	3.05	[1.25, 7.40]	0.014
模型3	高意义稳定组	1.00
	持续低意义组	2.74	[1.28, 5.88]	0.010
	意义提升组	0.81	[0.27, 2.44]	0.708
	意义降低组	3.00	[1.19, 7.52]	0.019