Four F Meaning
Roxine Denison
The site is secure.
The ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
This study examines four dimensions of self-defining memory (specificity, meaning, content, and affect) and their relationship to self-restraint, distress, and defensiveness. The development and validation of a protocol for measuring specificity, meaning, and affect in self-defining memories is discussed. Specificity is operationalized as the temporal and detailed specificity of the narrative. Meaning refers to the participant's stepping back from the narrative to derive higher personal meaning or a life lesson. Affect reflects subjective emotion upon recall. Agreement between two raters scoring 1040 memories was kappa=.83 for specificity and kappa=.72 for meaning. The protocol is compatible with Thorne and McLean's scoring system for content (the types of events in memories). The current study compared individual differences in the four dimensions of 10 self-defining memories collected from 103 undergraduates to scores of self-restraint, distress, and repressive defensiveness, as measured by the Weinberger Adjustment Inventory. Memory specificity was inversely related to repressive defensiveness, while greater memory meaning was linked to moderate and high levels of self-restraint. Memory content and affect predicted individuals' degree of subjective distress. Based on these findings, the authors discuss the place of self-defining memories in Conway and Pleydell-Pearce's Self-Memory System model of autobiographical memory and personality, more generally.
Based on these surveys, here are six facts about where Americans find meaning in life and how those responses have shifted over the past four years. The analysis also examines how attitudes in the U.S. compare with those in 16 other advanced economies surveyed by the Center in 2021.
Researchers examined random samples of English responses, machine-translated non-English responses and responses translated by a professional translation firm to inductively develop a codebook for the main sources of meaning mentioned across the 17 publics. The codebook was iteratively improved via practice coding and calculations of intercoder reliability until a final selection of 20 codes was formally adopted (read Appendix C of the full report).
To apply the codebook to the full collection of 18,850 responses, a team of Pew Research Center coders and professional translators were trained to code English and non-English responses, respectively. Coders in both groups coded random samples and were evaluated for consistency and accuracy. They were asked to independently code responses only after reaching an acceptable threshold for intercoder reliability. (For more on this, read Appendix A of the full report.)
The U.S. stands out as one of only three publics surveyed in 2021 where mentions of society significantly coincide with greater negativity. The other two are Italy and Spain, but in neither of them is the relationship between society and negativity as strong as it is in the U.S.
Much of this increase has occurred among Republicans and independents who lean toward the Republican Party. This year, 12% of Republicans mention freedom or independence, up from 5% in 2017. There has been no significant change among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents during this period (6% this year vs. 5% in 2017).
While Republicans in the U.S. are much more likely than Democrats to mention freedom or independence as a source of meaning in life, similar ideological divides are not evident elsewhere in the world. Mentions of freedom are not associated with right-leaning ideological views in any of the other 16 publics surveyed in 2021; in fact, in two other publics (Italy and Spain), such mentions are more common among those on the ideological left.
Mentions of freedom in the U.S. have become more common among other demographic groups, too. For example, while just 4% of parents mentioned the topic in 2017, 9% do so in 2021, matching the share of non-parents who currently mention freedom or independence as a source of meaning in life. Similarly, Americans without a college degree have become more likely to refer to the subject, now mentioning it at roughly the same rate as those with a college degree (9%).
Despite the decline, Americans are among the most likely to mention their spouse or partner among all 17 places surveyed. Outside of the U.S., mentions of romantic partners are most common in the Netherlands (8%) and Italy (7%). But no more than 5% of adults in most other places mention their spouse or partner.
The widespread travel restrictions in response to the pandemic may have also affected the share of Americans who derive meaning from travel, which declined from 6% in 2017 to 3% in 2021. But the topic of travel remains more common among college graduates and those with a total family income of $100,000 or more per year.
The emphasis on health has also fallen significantly among White Americans, who now mention the topic at a similar rate as Black and Hispanic Americans. In 2017, by contrast, White adults were more likely than Black and Hispanic adults to mention their health.
3. Storytelling. When it comes to finding meaning, it helps to try to pull particularly relevant experiences in our lives into a coherent narrative that defines our identity. People who describe their lives as meaningful tend to have redemptive stories where they overcame something negative, and to emphasize growth, communion with others, and personal agency. Laura Kray and colleagues found that asking people to consider paths not taken in life and the consequences of those choices imbued experiences with more meaning.
The FSF's commitment is unwavering, but we urgently need your financial support. New and renewing associate members will help us bring free software to every facet of people's lives. Help us reach our goal of 200 new members by July 26.
You may have paid money to get copies of a free program, or you mayhave obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got yourcopies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software,even to sell copies.
The free software definition presents the criteria for whether aparticular software program qualifies as free software. From time totime we revise this definition, to clarify it or to resolve questionsabout subtle issues. See the History sectionbelow for a list of changes that affect the definition of freesoftware.
A program is free software if it gives users adequately all of thesefreedoms. Otherwise, it is nonfree. While we can distinguish variousnonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short ofbeing free, we consider them all equally unethical.
In any given scenario, these freedoms must apply to whatever codewe plan to make use of, or lead others to make use of. For instance,consider a program A which automatically launches a program B tohandle some cases. If we plan to distribute A as it stands, thatimplies users will need B, so we need to judge whether both A and Bare free. However, if we plan to modify A so that it doesn't use B,only A needs to be free; B is not pertinent to that plan.
We want to invite everyone to use the GNU system, including businessesand their workers. That requires allowing commercial use. We hopethat free replacement programs will supplant comparable proprietaryprograms, but they can't do that if businesses are forbidden to usethem. We want commercial products that contain software to includethe GNU system, and that would constitute commercial distribution fora price. Commercial development of free software is no longerunusual; such free commercial software is very important. Paid,professional support for free software fills an important need.
Thus, to exclude commercial use, commercial development or commercialdistribution would hobble the free software community and obstruct itspath to success. We must conclude that a program licensed with suchrestrictions does not qualify as free software.
A free program must offer the four freedoms to any would-be user thatobtains a copy of the software, who has complied thus far with theconditions of the free license covering the software in any previousdistribution of it. Putting some of the freedoms off limits to someusers, or requiring that users pay, in money or in kind, to exercisethem, is tantamount to not granting the freedoms in question, and thusrenders the program nonfree.
The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of personor organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind ofoverall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about itwith the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it isthe user's purpose that matters, not the developer'spurpose; you as a user are free to run the program for your purposes,and if you distribute it to other people, they are then free to run it fortheir purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on them.
The freedom to run the program as you wish means that you are notforbidden or stopped from making it run. This has nothing to do with whatfunctionality the program has, whether it is technically capable offunctioning in any given environment, or whether it is useful for anyparticular computing activity.
Whether a change constitutes an improvement is a subjective matter.If your right to modify a program is limited, in substance, to changes thatsomeone else considers an improvement, that program is not free.
Freedom to distribute (freedoms 2 and 3) means you are free toredistribute copies, either with or without modifications, eithergratis or charging a fee for distribution, toanyone anywhere. Being free to do thesethings means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or payfor permission to do so.
You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use themprivately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that theyexist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required tonotify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.
c80f0f1006