Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Difficulty-as-sanctifying: when difficulties build character, purify the self, and elevate the soul
(USC Thesis Other)
Difficulty-as-sanctifying: when difficulties build character, purify the self, and elevate the soul
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Copyright (2020) Gulnaz Kiper
DIFFICULTY-AS-SANCTIFYING:
WHEN DIFFICULTIES BUILD CHARACTER,
PURIFY THE SELF, AND ELEVATE THE SOUL
by
Gulnaz Kiper
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC DORNSIFE COLLEGE OF LETTERS, ARTS, AND SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(PSYCHOLOGY)
May 2020
ii
Table of Contents
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. v
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ vi
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... vii
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Motivating Effects of Ease and Difficulty Mindsets ................................................................... 2
Ease Mindsets .......................................................................................................................... 2
Difficulty Mindsets .................................................................................................................. 3
Conceptualizing Ease and Difficulty Mindsets Within an Expectancy-Value Framework .... 6
A Missing Piece: Value from Engagement versus Value from Outcome ............................... 7
Cultural Frameworks and Difficulty-as-Sanctifying Mindsets ................................................... 9
Heroes as Those who Have Been Sanctified Through Difficulty ........................................... 9
Sanctified Heroes of Modern Society .................................................................................... 12
Difficulty-as-Sanctifying in Constructing Personal Hero Narratives and Adding Meaning to
Life ............................................................................................................................................ 14
Religions Teach that Suffering is Inevitable and Valuable ....................................................... 15
Difficulty-as-Sanctifying Mindset, Chosen, and Unchosen Difficulties................................... 16
Political Ideology and Difficulty-as-Sanctifying Mindsets ....................................................... 17
Current Studies ............................................................................................................................. 20
Methods ........................................................................................................................................ 21
Sample ....................................................................................................................................... 21
Materials .................................................................................................................................... 22
Difficulty-as-Sanctifying Mindset ......................................................................................... 22
Ease and Difficulty Mindsets ................................................................................................ 23
Character Measures ............................................................................................................... 23
iii
Measures Related to Conservatism........................................................................................ 24
Religiosity .............................................................................................................................. 25
Outcome Variables ................................................................................................................ 26
Procedure ................................................................................................................................... 26
Data Collection ...................................................................................................................... 26
Power and Stop Rules ............................................................................................................... 28
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 29
Aim 1. Internal Consistency and Factor Structure .................................................................... 29
Internal Consistency .............................................................................................................. 29
Factor Structure ..................................................................................................................... 30
Analysis Plan for Factor Analysis..................................................................................... 30
Exploratory Factor Analyses............................................................................................. 31
4-item DASSA-Scale ........................................................................................................ 34
Confirmatory Factor Analyses .......................................................................................... 35
Aim 2. Convergent and Discriminant Validity of DASSA ....................................................... 36
Analysis Plan ......................................................................................................................... 36
Subgroup Analyses ................................................................................................................ 36
Age, Gender, Education, Income ...................................................................................... 36
Political Conservatism ...................................................................................................... 38
Religiosity ......................................................................................................................... 38
Convergent and Discriminant Validity .................................................................................. 38
Correlations of DASSA with Constructs Relating to Conservatism in Study 7 .................... 41
Aim 3. Explanatory Power for Meaning in Life and Conscientiousness .................................. 41
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 46
Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................ 48
Scale Validity ........................................................................................................................ 48
Convergent and Discriminant Validity .................................................................................. 49
Mediation of Worldview and Positive Outcomes.................................................................. 54
Liberals and Non-Religious People........................................................................................... 56
Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 57
iv
Implications and Future Directions ........................................................................................... 58
Priming Studies, Linguistic Markers, and Connection to the Future .................................... 58
Investigating Social Aspects of Sanctification ...................................................................... 58
Chosen vs. Unchosen Difficulties ......................................................................................... 59
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 59
References ..................................................................................................................................... 61
Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 76
Meta Analyses ........................................................................................................................... 81
v
List of Tables
Table 1. Sample demographic information. .................................................................................. 22
Table 2. Scales included in each block of each study ................................................................... 27
Table 3. Factor Structure of the 20-item Difficulty-as-sanctifying (DASSA) scale, Studies 1 & 2
....................................................................................................................................................... 33
Table 4. DASSA, Difficulty-as-Sanctifying Scale. ...................................................................... 34
Table 5. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (Studies 3, 4, 5, and 6) ................................................... 35
Table 6. Descriptive Statistics of the DASSA (Studies 1-7) ........................................................ 35
Table 7. Correlations of DASSA with Demographic Characteristics (Studies 1-7) ..................... 37
Table 8. Correlations of DASSA with ease and difficulty mindsets ............................................ 39
Table 9. Correlations of DASSA with character qualities ............................................................ 40
Table 10. Mediation analysis with worldview as predictor variable, difficulty-as-sanctifying as
mediator, and conscientiousness as outcome variable. ................................................................. 42
Table 11. Mediation analysis with worldview as predictor variable, difficulty-as-sanctifying as
mediator, and meaning in life as outcome variable. ..................................................................... 44
Table 12. Participants’ race-ethnicity information ....................................................................... 76
Table 13. Participants’ political ideology ..................................................................................... 77
Table 14. Participants’ political affiliation ................................................................................... 77
Table 15. Participants’ religiosity ratings ..................................................................................... 78
Table 16. Participants’ religious affiliation .................................................................................. 78
Table 17. Mturk participants’ education information ................................................................... 79
Table 18. Mturk Participants’ income information....................................................................... 80
Table 19. Undergraduate participants’ year in school .................................................................. 81
Table 20. Results of the Meta-Analyses for Correlations between SANE-DS and Lay Theories of
Ease and Difficulty ....................................................................................................................... 82
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Mediation model for conservatism, difficulty-as-sanctifying, and conscientiousness,
adjusting for religiosity; combined datasets from Studies 1 and 4. .............................................. 43
Figure 2. Mediation model for religiosity, difficulty-as-sanctifying, and conscientiousness,
adjusting for conservatism; combined datasets from Studies 1 and 4. ......................................... 43
Figure 3. Mediation model for conservatism, difficulty-as-sanctifying, and meaning in life,
adjusting for religiosity; combined datasets from Studies 5, 6, and 7. ......................................... 45
Figure 4. Mediation model for religiosity, difficulty-as-sanctifying, and meaning in life,
adjusting for conservatism; combined datasets from Studies 5, 6, and 7. .................................... 45
Figure 5. Mediation analysis from Study 7. .................................................................................. 46
Figure 6. Forest plot for meta-analysis of difficulty-as-importance. ............................................ 83
Figure 7. Forest plot for meta analysis of difficulty-as-impossibility .......................................... 83
Figure 8. Forest plot for meta analysis of ease-as-triviality.......................................................... 84
Figure 9. Forest plot for meta analysis of ease-as-possibility ....................................................... 84
vii
Abstract
Often through no fault or choice of their own making, people’s everyday lives entail
difficulty, pain, and suffering. Though not chosen, these experiences can be meaningful. Both
religions and cultures suggest that pain and suffering "sanctify," purify one of the sins of the ego,
build character, and ultimately make one a better person. Yet social scientists know little about
this difficulty-as-sanctifying mindset as a motivational construct. To address this gap, we build
on Identity-Based Motivation theory to develop and initially validate a brief difficulty-as-
sanctifying scale (N=744), We document that difficulty-as-sanctifying is distinct from other ease
and difficulty mindsets (e.g., difficulty-as-importance, difficulty-as-impossibility, grit, growth
mindset) and measures of character traits (self-control, moralization of self-control, character
strengths). Religious and politically conservative people are more likely to endorse difficulty-as-
sanctifying. Mediation analyses suggest that difficulty-as-sanctifying explains why religious
people experience more meaning in life and why religious and conservative people are more
conscientious.
1
Introduction
Consider the difference between these sayings about ease “That’s child’s play.” “It’s a
piece of cake.” “It’s a breeze,” and difficulty: “You can’t teach old dogs new tricks.” “If you
cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.” “It’s
not the struggle that defines you, but rather how you respond.” “No pain, no gain.” These
everyday sayings reflect people’s experience with ease and difficulty. They highlight that things
that are easy are possible but may not be all that consequential or meaningful while things that
are difficult may be impossible, even fatal, yet can be the way to attain that which is potentially
quite valuable, and can be character building and purifying. These ease and difficulty mindsets --
ways of thinking that tend to be shared in common within a group or culture, focus attention,
organize experience, and trigger action-readiness. That is, they formulate particular ways of
engaging with ease and difficulty as being self-defining and self-relevant; they are ways of
making sense of what ease and difficulty imply for the self and which courses of action are self-
relevant. Indeed, as we articulate in this paper, such ease and difficulty mindsets are both
ubiquitous and understudied. We focus especially on what we term difficulty-as-sanctifying
mindsets which we operationalize as the shared idea that enduring challenges and facing
adversity carries the promise of strengthening the spirit, purifying and renewing the self, and
building character. We suggest that a difficulty-as-sanctifying mindset is reflected in stories
about heroes, in philosophy, religion, and conservative political ideology, but not in the social
science literature on motivation. In this paper, we articulate the cultural roots of difficulty-as-
sanctifying mindsets and empirically test our prediction that this mindset is distinct and useful in
understanding how people draw a sense of meaning in their lives and keep going.
2
Motivating Effects of Ease and Difficulty Mindsets
Identity-based motivation (IBM) theory predicts that people prefer to act and make sense
of their experiences in identity-congruent ways, but that features of the immediate situation
shape which identities come to mind and how people make sense of the implications of their
experiences of ease and difficulty (Oyserman, 2007, 2015). How people interpret their
experiences of ease and difficulty matters for striving, engagement, and perceptions of oneself.
IBM theory predicts that people’s attributions about what experienced ease and difficulty imply
are a function of which identities come to mind and what these identities seem to imply in
context for action and meaning-making (Oyserman, 2007, 2009). That is, sometimes ease and
difficulty seem self-relevant for what they imply about the odds of success (“possible for me”,
“impossible for me”) and other times they seem self-relevant for what they imply about the value
of task success (“important for me”, “trival for me”). In this sense, as detailed next, ease and
difficulty mindsets can be considered a form of the larger class of expectancy-value theories
(Atkinson, 1964; Feather, 1967; Rotter, 1954).
Ease Mindsets
Following IBM, experienced ease might signify that succeeding at a task is likely and
possible, a “me” thing to do. It could also signal that a task, although possible, is trivial and
hence “not worth my time, not for me.” In that sense, task-related motivation could be bolstered
or undermined as a consequence of whether ease is understood in terms of high odds of success
(possible for “me”) or in terms of low value (trivial for “me”).
Ease-as-Possibility. An early formulation of ease-as-possibility can be found within
Weiner’s (1979) attribution theory. Within this formulation, prior success is motivating if it is
interpreted as due to the ease of the task. More generally, motivation, learning and judgment
3
frameworks seem to take for granted that ease is motivating (Pintrich, Wolters, & Baxter, 2000;
Nelson & Narens, 1990). In this literature, a feeling of ease while attempting a task is understood
as implying something about one’s high odds of success: “I know this (or can know it), I am (or
can become) good at this.” Indeed, the large body of work on judgments of learning suggests that
when people experience ease, they typically infer that they know the material or are doing well
on a test or exam (for a review Bjork, Dunlosky, & Kornell, 2013). From an ease-as-possibility
lens, easy things trigger engagement (“I can do this!”). A measure of ease-as-possibility was
developed and validated by Fisher and Oyserman (2017).
Ease-as-Triviality. Experienced ease does not necessarily translate into engagement
because ease has more than one meaning. Ease can also imply something about value --although
possible, easy tasks may be of low value (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). That is, ease can be
interpreted as triviality, that engaging in a task is just not worth one’s time. This lack of value is
distinct from likelihood of success: “I should not waste my time on this stuff, it is beneath me”.
For example, gifted students are at risk of disengaging and underperforming if they interpret
their experienced ease in learning as implying that schoolwork is so easy as to be trivial and not
worth their time (Kanevsky & Keighley, 2003). A measure of ease-as-triviality was developed
and validated by Fisher and Oyserman (2017).
Difficulty Mindsets
What about difficulty? Difficulty mindsets address the question of what difficulty means
for the self and how one should act in the face of difficulty. Difficulty can be motivating if
experiencing difficulty implies that success at the task is valuable and important for “me” --“no
pain, no gain.” If so, then people should dig in and keep going. But there are also three distinct
ways in which experiencing difficulty can be demotivating. First, it can mean that success at the
4
task is unlikely and hence “not for me.” Second, it can signal that one has hit the limits of one’s
abilities, that even with effort one cannot change. Third, it can signal that one should quit
because one is not the kind of person who is willing to persist. Each of these three demotivating
interpretations suggest quitting for different reasons -- effort is a waste of time, I cannot change,
I am not the kind of person who keeps going. These four ways of thinking about difficulty can be
considered four difficulty mindsets --sets of mind in considering what difficulties imply. Prior
literature has conceptualized these mindsets using a number of terms, difficulty-as-importance,
difficulty-as-impossibility, fixed vs. growth mindset, and grit. These literatures suggest that each
of these mindsets has implications for how people see themselves and how they choose to
engage in tasks.
Difficulty-as-Importance and Difficulty-as-Impossibility. Identity-based motivation
(IBM) theory (Oyserman, 2007, 2009) distinguishes between the motivational consequences of
interpreting difficulty as importance and interpreting difficulty as impossibility. IBM theory
predicts that people have both interpretations of difficulty available to them in memory because
both reflect different aspects of reality and hence are not two sides of the same motivational coin,
but rather two distinct difficulty mindsets. A difficulty-as-importance mindset implies that
experiences of difficulty signal that a task is important for “me” or for “us” to do. A difficulty-
as-impossibility mindset implies that the odds of succeeding in that task are low for “me” or for
“us.”. If difficulty implies importance rather than impossibility, people should be more willing to
persist in difficult tasks (Oyserman, 2007, 2009). The implication is that the difficulty mindset
one uses can affect whether one experiences fitting in or belonging in an academic setting. If
difficulty is taken to mean importance, then experiencing difficulty should not undermine
5
belonging and may even enhance it. In contrast, if difficulty is taken to mean impossibility, then
experiencing difficulty can imply that one does not belong in school.
Fixed versus Growth Mindset. The fixed versus growth mindset approach (Dweck,
2000) focuses on people’s beliefs about intelligence (e.g., “You have a certain amount of
intelligence and you really cannot do much to change it”). Fixed mindset is conceptualized as
one end and growth mindset the other end of a single spectrum. Holding a fixed mindset implies
that intelligence is fixed and cannot change; holding a growth mindset implies that intelligence
can change (be grown). Though it does not explicitly position itself as a form of a difficulty
mindset, the fixed vs. growth mindset approach does focus on attributions people make after
failure and subsequent effort they exert (Dweck & Yeager, 2019). We consider fixed vs. growth
mindset as a type of difficulty mindset in the sense that when people experience difficulty or
failure or fall short, they implicitly or explicitly ask themselves whether they have hit their limits
or if with effort they can change. A fixed mindset implies that the current situation is fixed and
that there is no point exerting effort; a growth mindset implies that with effort one can change so
effort is worth one’s while.
Grit. Grit is that aspect of conscientiousness that focuses on stick-to-it-ness, willingness
to stay the course, and persist in the face of difficulties (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009). Like fixed
vs. growth mindset, a grit approach is not typically considered a difficulty mindset. However, we
see grit as a way to make sense of an experience of difficulty. That is, people (implicitly) ask
themselves whether they have grit in difficult situations -- in response to the implicit questions,
“Am I a person with resilience? Am I a person who sticks to their goals, even when the going
gets tough?”, people high in grit respond “yes”! From a difficulty mindset perspective, in these
situations, people who believe that they have grit should be motivated to stay the course.
6
Conceptualizing Ease and Difficulty Mindsets Within an Expectancy-Value Framework
Classic theories of motivation distinguish between expectations --beliefs about the odds
of success, and value --beliefs about the point of engagement. The ease and difficulty mindsets
we have just articulated focus mostly on the expectation aspect of this formulation. Thus, ease-
as-possibility, difficulty-as-impossibility, fixed versus growth, and grit mindsets each highlight
the ways in which people’s experiences of ease or difficulty affect their motivation to keep going
by providing an (implicit) answer to an odds of success question - “can this work?” Thus, ease-
as-possibility informs that easy things are possible, difficulty-as-impossibility informs that
difficult things are impossible. In some ways, fixed (low growth) mindset and grit mindset
articulate why difficult things are impossible -- they are impossible because one’s ability
(intelligence) is fixed or because difficult things require willingness to stick with things, and one
is not willing. These mindsets however, are silent, on question of the value -- “is it worth it for
me?” However, in different ways, an ease-as-triviality mindset and a difficulty-as-importance
mindset each do address the question of value. Ease-as-triviality provides a resounding “no” to
the question of “is it worth it for me,” if the situation feels easy. In contrast, difficulty-as-
importance provides a resounding “yes” to the same question of worth; if the situation feels
difficult, this mindset alerts people to the value of engaging with the task.
Empirical Evidence of the Distinction Between Expectancy-based and Value-based
Mindsets
From an identity-based motivation perspective, when tasks feel easy, interpreting ease as
possibility motivates engagement and interpreting ease as triviality is demotivating. At the same
time, when tasks feel difficult, interpreting difficulty as importance motivates task engagement
while interpreting difficulty as impossibility is demotivating. It is demotivating whether
7
difficulty means impossibility generally or for a specific reason --because of a fixed (low
growth) mindset which implies that change is not possible or because of a low grit mindset
which implies that one is not the kind of person who persists. Indeed, initial studies document
that scoring higher on ease as possibility is associated with better performance and scoring
higher on ease as triviality is associated with worse performance (Fisher & Oyserman, 2017).
Moreover, empirically, the mindsets that function via expectancy are correlated
constructs. Fisher and Oyserman (2017) found that difficulty-as-impossibility, for example, was
negatively correlated with growth (r = -.34) and grit (r = -.54) mindsets, and growth and grit
were positively correlated (r = .27). Perhaps because of its focus on ease rather than difficulty,
endorsement of ease-as-possibility was not meaningfully correlated with endorsement of
difficulty-as-impossibility (r = -.15), growth (r = .17) or grit (r = .09) mindsets.
On the other hand, expectancy-based difficulty mindsets were distinct from the value-
based difficulty mindset, difficulty-as-importance. Thus, difficulty-as-importance was not
meaningfully correlated with difficulty-as-impossibility (r = -.12), growth mindset (r = .07) or
grit (r = .15). At the same time, the expectancy-based ease mindset, ease-as-possibility, had a
small relationship with the valued-based mindsets --the correlation between ease-as-possibility
and difficulty-as-importance (r = .24), ease-as-triviality, (r = .21), growth (r = -.24), and grit (r =
-.20) was consistent but weak. These correlations provide support for the notion that expectancy-
based mindsets and value-based mindsets function separately, rather than as opposite sides of the
same underlying construct, and are distinct motivational forces.
A Missing Piece: Value from Engagement versus Value from Outcome
Note however, that neither of the value-based mindsets (ease-as-triviality, difficulty-as-
importance) addresses the possibility that engaging with difficulty can be of value in and of
8
itself. The ease-as-triviality mindset focuses attention on low value for the self of succeeding in
easy tasks -- winning at Chinese Checkers when the opponent is one’s two year old is likely
easy, but unlikely to be a valuable outcome. The difficulty-as-importance mindset focuses
attention on the high value of persistent engagement in a task that is difficult because succeeding
in the task is a “me” or “us” thing to do. In a 1985 advertisement for Jack LaLanne gyms, Cher
posed as a blonde, saying, “Getting blonde was easy, getting this body was not. I pushed myself
because I like how it looks” --implying that the pain and difficulty of exercise is worth the effort
because having a particular body is identity-relevant and personally important, a “me” thing to
do.
Neither of these mindsets focuses attention on the very act of engaging with difficulty -
what if Cher did not get the body she wanted, would she keep going to the gym? In some
instances, engaging with difficulty is valuable separate from attaining an outcome as tangible as
a toned body. But to date, value-based mindsets have not addressed the possibility that the way
people engage with difficulty matters, that engaging in the right way can be experienced as
valuable in the sense of building character and making one worthy of respect. That is, people can
become uplifted, inspired, heartened and encouraged when engaging difficulty in a particular
way and this can result in the emergence of a better version of the self. We term the idea that
engaging difficulty in a certain way can result in the emergence of a better version of oneself a
difficulty-as-sanctifying mindset. Of course, people do not have to become better as a result of
experiencing difficulties -- they can become demoralized, disheartened, defeated, and
discouraged, all of which result in the emergence of a baser rather than a purer version of the
self.
9
Not only is a difficulty-as-sanctifying mindset distinct from other value-based mindsets,
but it is also distinct from the expectancy-based mindsets, difficulty-as-impossibility, growth
mindset, and grit. Difficulty-as-sanctifying is distinct from difficulty-as-impossibility because it
is not asking about the odds of success; it is distinct from a growth mindset because it is not
asking if change is possible; and it is distinct from a grit mindset because it is not asking if one
has stick-to-it-ness. Rather, it is suggesting that engaging with difficulty, suffering even, is the
way to become better, that even difficulties from which one cannot escape can be beneficial to
one’s personhood and character. It answers the question, “why should I engage with difficulty?”
As we will outline in the next sections, a difficulty-as-sanctifying mindset has universal
roots. It builds on culture-based ideas about what makes for heroes but also on philosophical and
religious traditions and fits with conservative political ideologies-- each of these articulate the
idea that engaging with difficulty can be good for one’s character and soul. We suggest that
endorsing a difficulty-as-sanctifying mindset is an important proximal reason why people who
are more religious report more meaning in life (Chamberlain and Zika, 1992; Ivtzan et al., 2013),
and are higher in conscientiousness (Henningsgaard and Arnau, 2007) and also why conservative
people report more meaning in life (Newman et al., 2018) and are higher in conscientiousness
(Carney et al., 2008).
Cultural Frameworks and Difficulty-as-Sanctifying Mindsets
Heroes as Those who Have Been Sanctified Through Difficulty
Joseph Campbell, a 20th Century professor of literature and scholar of comparative
literature and religion, examined myths and fables of different cultures across time periods and
discovered that all of these narratives could be boiled down to a story template that he called the
“hero’s journey.” For him, the punchline of myths and fables across different times and cultures
10
is the same: people can become transformed and discover the most meaningful things in life as a
result of experiencing often catastrophic difficulties. At the same time, what people learn from
experiencing catastrophic difficulties can be either to become selfish and take the easier path, or
to become selfless and take the higher path.
As Campbell describes, a common theme across myths and fables is that of a character
who goes on a journey and encounters formidable challenges and temptations. It is not the
challenges and temptations themselves that matter, but rather how the character engages with and
overcomes internal and external challenges that does. The antithesis of the hero can be called the
antihero - a character who appears to be lost and does not have any guiding drive, deep faith, nor
action with any great convictions (Bratton, 2004). An antihero becomes so by succumbing to
desires of ego, choosing pleasure over hardship, and taking the easy route rather than the morally
elevating one. Taking this route makes the character smaller and weaker.
Alternatively, the character can overcome these desires, face hardship and suffering, and
return from the journey transformed. Before the journey, the character seems unremarkable in
many ways, a person who has no knowledge of the larger world and is complacent in the small
confines of their town or village. At the same time, this character is marked in some way by the
yearning to journey beyond and learn about the unknown. Then there is a call to adventure,
which the character comes to accept even if initially reluctant. Perhaps the most crucial leg of the
adventure is facing trials, tribulations, and metaphorical dragons - both inner fears and
weaknesses, and exterior “forces of evil” in Campbell’s words (1949). By sacrificing pleasure
and comfort for something greater than him or herself, the hero gains insight, wisdom, humility,
compassion, and character strength. A character who takes the morally elevating route is not only
reborn as a better person, but also becomes a hero fit to bring wisdom back into the community.
11
Our sense is that it is not only the ancient myths, fables, and stories Campbell examined that
carry this deep structure. Modern literature, films, and social discourse do as well.
Consider a prime example of the hero’s journey, the adventures of Frodo Baggins in
Tolkien’s (1973) trilogy of stories, Lord of the Rings. In the beginning of the trilogy, Frodo lives
happily in the Shire, where he is a mostly ordinary and unremarkable individual, safe from
danger and worry. One day, the wizard Gandalf tells him that there is a mission he must go on.
Reluctant at first, Frodo eventually steps up to the challenge and accepts his destiny, realizing
how important his success is for humankind. On his journey to Mordor, Frodo is forced to endure
a multitude of challenges: fighting Orcs, hiding from predatory servants of the dark lord,
traveling wide distances with little food and water, and perhaps the most difficult, constantly
resisting the tempting call of the ring to use it for personal gain and power. Frodo is transformed
to a hero through overcoming immense suffering, resisting succumbing to his ego, and not
allowing his suffering to deter him from his purpose. Frodo in this sense becomes “sanctified” --
that is he is elevated above the mundane, purified from his ego, and worthy of the veneration of
many. He has succeeded in such an exceptional task that the King himself bows to him,
confirming his elevated status in society. He is loved and trusted because he has proven that he
can forsake his individual desires for the sake of a higher purpose, no matter how difficult the
path will be.
The Lord of the Rings also provides a clear example of an antihero. Whereas Frodo
Baggins consistently resists the call of the ring to use it for personal gain and power - an
incredibly burdensome task in and of itself - the Hobbit Smeagol, does not. He also happens
upon the ring before the beginning of the trilogy and is unable to resist the temptation to use the
ring. Eventually, his soul is devoured by the ring, and he ends up a lonesome, sullied creature,
12
living in solitude in the cold mountains, far from human society. In this sense, Smeagol, or, as he
comes to be known after losing his livelihood to the ring, Gollum, is the anti-hero to Frodo’s
hero. Both Frodo and Smeagol face the same formidable challenge - resisting succumbing to the
call of the ring of power. Yet whereas Frodo constantly overcomes this challenge, even as the
ring gets “heavier,” Smeagol surrenders to its dangerous pleasures.
Journeying into the unknown, facing evils, and coming back better and transformed are
core many other heroes in stories cherished in our cultures: the Odyssey (Homer, ) Harry in the
Harry Potter series (Rowling, 2014), Luke Skywalker in Star Wars (Kurtz & Lucas, 1977), Neo
in the Matrix (Wachowski, Wachowski, & Silver, 1999), Katniss Everdeen in the Hunger Games
(Collins, 2013), Simba in The Lion King (Hahn, Allers, & Minkoff, 1994), Bruce Wayne in the
Dark Knight (Nolan, Roven, & Thomas, 2008) and Peter Parker in Spider Man (Ziskin & Bryce,
2002).
Sanctified Heroes of Modern Society
To understand the power of the hero narrative for modern society, consider Nelson
Mandela and John McCain. For South Africans, Nelson Mandela’s harrowing 27 years in prison
in South Africa forged his strong character and made him a leader fit to lead South Africa as
President. A South African anti-apartheid revolutionary, political leader, and philanthropist, he
came to be widely regarded as an icon of democracy and social justice, receiving more than 250
honors in his lifetime, including the Nobel Peace Prize (Mandela, 1993). For Americans, John
McCain’s remaining in a Vietnamese prison and refusing release until his fellow prisoners were
released, revealed his heroic character: “It’s not just that he survived being hung by ropes from
two broken arms and beaten senseless; it’s that when his captors learned of his famous father (a
navy admiral) and offered to let him go home, he refused unless they let the rest of the prisoners
13
go as well” (Time Magazine, 1999). Being seen as a hero implied a moral legitimacy so much so
that McCain’s Republican opponent, President Donald Trump, attempted to reframe the narrative
of purifying suffering: “He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t
captured.” (Relman, 2018). He reframed the narrative as though being captured was what made
McCain a hero, when it really was how he responded to being captured that made him come to
be perceived as a hero.
People are drawn to and prone to follow individuals who seem to possess hero-like traits
of having endured or conquered suffering (Allison & Cecilione, 2015; Allison & Goethals, 2011,
2014; Goethals & Allison, 2014; Kinsella et al., 2014, in press). Why is it that we trust heroes so
deeply to lead our societies? Given the ubiquity of hero narratives, people who fit such
narratives, who have “been through the fire” or “weathered the storm;” who welcome pain and
engage with hardship when the circumstances call for it, are assumed to have strong character.
They are legitimate leaders as a result of having forsaken personal pleasure and comfort and
committing to enduring suffering. When Nelson Mandela was released from prison, not only was
he void of any signs of bitterness or vengeance, but he also invited his former jailer to his
inauguration and dinner, emphasising personal forgiveness and reconciliation and proving his
strength in character (Meredith, 2010). John McCain could have chosen to be released when
asked, ending his suffering, yet he insisted on staying until all other prisoners were released.
Although these heroes do not explicitly argue that their experiences of difficulty were
“sanctifying,” they embody this notion through their actions. Both men chose to do the right
thing, no matter how painful it may be, and remained loyally bound to their values even in the
face of torture, exemplifying their trustworthiness, commitment to ideals greater than
themselves, and resilience. In this sense, a difficulty-as-sanctifying mindset may be a facet of
14
conscientiousness, able to inform us about the extent to which one is willing to do the “right”
thing, no matter how difficult the choice may be.
Difficulty-as-Sanctifying in Constructing Personal Hero Narratives and Adding Meaning to
Life
The difficulty-as-sanctifying belief is not only a central aspect of the hero’s journey in
mythic and political narratives, but could also allow individuals to see themselves in everyday
life as heroes on their own journeys, providing more meaning to their lives, especially when
experiencing suffering that is not easily understood. When one cannot find a reason for the
suffering, one’s suffering may become intensified. Just world belief – the belief that the world is
just and people get what they deserve (Lerner, 1980) – allows people to look at others who are
suffering and justify not helping them by thinking that they brought it on themselves. The
problem arises when a person experiences suffering themselves and yet they think of themselves
as a good person who doesn’t deserve suffering. So, how can individuals reconcile this
confusion? They can reframe it to understand their suffering as a positive, character-building
experience. Indeed, suffering is hard to bear when it is not understood, but people can be resilient
in the face of a great deal of suffering if they can understand it as having a purpose or reason,
such as building character and resilience.
This idea is a core element of the writings of Carl Jung (1955) and Viktor Frankl (1946).
Frankl posited that a discovery of meaning transforms the experience of suffering into a positive,
transformative experience: “In some way, suffering ceases to be suffering at the moment it finds
a meaning, such as the meaning of a sacrifice.... That is why man is even ready to suffer, on the
condition, to be sure, that his suffering has a meaning” (Frankl, 1946). Not only does the search
for and creation of meaning alleviate suffering, but also, the failure to find or create meaning can
15
in itself cause or exacerbate the suffering. Similar to Jung and Frankl, Haidt (“Adversity
Hypothesis,” 2006) and Pennebaker (1997) espouse the idea that healing and transformation can
take place as a result of reflecting and writing on one’s past trauma, since through engaging in
such reflection, one usually is able to attach some meaning to the suffering, which allows deeper
understanding and acceptance of the events that took place. A difficulty-as-sanctifying lens could
be one of these meaning-making frameworks that allows for healing and well-being. If one can
attach a “sanctifying” meaning to their suffering, their experience is no longer just suffering.
Rather, it becomes something morally good in that it provides one with a reason for the suffering
– transformation and purification of the self as a result of overcoming the suffering. In this sense,
not only could using a difficulty-as-sanctifying lens for understanding past trauma add to
meaning in life, but using this lens for current hardship could also yield resilience and strength to
persist in the present difficult situation, acting as a motivational mindset.
Religions Teach that Suffering is Inevitable and Valuable
The idea that overcoming suffering and difficulties can elevate, enhance, and purify the
spirit may be universal in that it is not only part of cultural myths and fables, but can also be seen
in a variety of religious traditions, including Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism. It is
easier to accept suffering and more reasonable to see difficulties as chances to build one’s
character if experiencing difficulties is not only inevitable but also central to personal and
spiritual growth (Hanh, 1999). Recently, the Dalai Lama said: “The person who has had more
experience of hardships can stand more firmly in the face of problems than the person who has
never experienced suffering. From this angle, then, some suffering can be a good lesson for life.”
(Dalai Lama, 2001). In Judaism, suffering and pain are seen as necessary to be able to feel
deeper joys, and God inflicts suffering so that people can later discover deeper rewards (Rashi &
16
Chavel, 1995). A central tenet of Christian belief is that Jesus Christ suffered to give meaning to
the suffering people experience in their everyday lives. In his Letter to the Romans (5:3-4), Paul
said: “Suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces
hope.” Coming out of suffering brings one closer to God (Romans 8:18-28). In Islamic
mysticism, the central notion is enduring suffering so that one may be purified from the ego, so
that one may feel more fully the love of God (Rumi & Mojaddedi, 2008).
Difficulty-as-Sanctifying Mindset, Chosen, and Unchosen Difficulties
The language used in the hero’s journey monomyth as well as in religious teachings tends
imply that most difficulties are not actively chosen, but are thrown upon people, and how people
respond to these difficulties can determine their growth and sanctification. In the hero’s journey,
there is a “call to adventure,” and the protagonist takes the first step towards becoming a hero by
answering the call to venture out to the unknown. Religious teachings suggest that suffering is
inevitable, but there is comfort in believing in the process of sanctification, in that it allows
people to extract sense, meaning, and coherence from difficult, negative, or painful experiences.
Whereas we believe that the sanctification mindset can help in making meaning out of unchosen
difficulties, we also believe that it can be an effective tool for motivation in choosing the difficult
route when that route is the more moral or right thing to do. In this regard, our proposed mindset
can be used as both a forward-looking motivational mindset, as well as a backward-looking
meaning making lens.
Being socialized into a religious worldview can help make this meaning-making lens
more readily accessible. In that regard, we predict that a difficulty-as-sanctifying mindset can
explain the relationship between religiosity and meaning in life. Moreover, as it is a prescription
for doing the moral and righteous thing, no matter how hard it may be, the difficulty-as-
17
sanctifying mindset may also be able to explain the relationship between religiosity and
conscientiousness.
Political Ideology and Difficulty-as-Sanctifying Mindsets
Hero’s Journey narratives imply that how people respond to hardship and pain matters,
and can be the determining factor of whether one becomes elevated to hero status. Religious
teachings imply that suffering is required for one to become purified, transformed, and worthy of
spiritual rewards. These frames point to the idea that appropriate engagement with difficulty is a
moral issue. Leaning into difficulty as a way to strengthen character and become a better person
can signal moral fiber. Since morality is seen to play a crucial role in the maintenance of social
order (Ellemers et al., 2019), people who believe in sustaining the social order (political
conservatives) may be more likely to believe that there is a correct way to act in the face of
difficulty and that overcoming difficulty can be sanctifying - conservative people tend to be
higher in their endorsement of the Protestant Work Ethic, the belief that one must subscribe to
hard work and discipline in order to achieve success (Furnham & Bland, 1983; Feather, 1984).
This formulation of engaging with hardship as legitimate and to be borne may also promote a
sense of meaning in life among people who hold this worldview. Indeed, political conservatism
has been linked to experiencing higher life satisfaction (Wojcik et al., 2015) and higher meaning
in life (Newman et al., 2018), yet the mechanisms through which political conservatism might
lead to these positive outcomes are not yet entirely clear. We predict that a difficulty-as-
sanctifying mindset may mediate the relationship between political conservatism and meaning in
life.
Moreover, political conservatism provides a clear template for how one ought to
behave—it is linked to the moral foundation values of loyalty, authority, and purity (Graham et
18
al., 2009), as well as to responsibility and conscientiousness (Carney et al., 2008). Endorsing that
there is a right way to be and behave entails the belief that there is also an appropriate way to
view and engage in difficulties. A difficulty-as-sanctifying lens may allow politically
conservative people to see difficulties in this way and motivate them to undertake the difficulty,
fostering a relationship between their political ideology and conscientiousness.
Not only that, but people who are more politically conservative are also more likely to
define themselves as having positive attributes that fit culturally desired traits as measured using
self-deceptive enhancement scales (Paulhus, 1994; Wojcik et al., 2015), which measure to what
extent people are motivated to view themselves in a positive light. We predict that seeing oneself
as having socially desirable traits and thus viewing oneself positively may contribute to
experiencing meaning in life, and that a difficulty-as-sanctifying mindset may explain why: if
one engages in self-deception in general to view themselves in a positive light, then one may also
be more likely to use self-deception when reconciling the confusion that comes along with
suffering. Instead of thinking that they deserved this painful or negative event because they are a
bad person, conservative people may instead fit the experience to their already existing positive
self-views. They may think, “I am a good person. I am going through pain; thus, it must mean
that I have to endure this testing time so that I may become a better person.” We thus predict that
a difficulty-as-sanctifying mindset would mediate the relationship between self-deceptive
enhancement as a component of political conservatism, and meaning in life.
There is some evidence that the sanctification mindset might be able to explain the
relationship between self-deceptive enhancement as a component of political conservatism and
meaning in life; people who interpret their negative experiences as valuable for them in the long
19
run, as contributing to their learning and growth, report experiencing more meaning in life
(Vohs, Aaker, & Catapano, 2019).
Furthermore, economic system justification has been linked to conservative ideology
(Jost and Thompson, 2000). People who are able to rationalize economic inequalities in the
world may more easily experience coherence and meaning in life. Thus, we also explore the
relationship among the sanctification mindset, economic system justification, and meaning in
life.
Difficulty-as-Sanctifying Mindset
Infurna and Jayawickreme (2019) argue that the claim about strength from adversity, an
attractive and central idea to many disciplines and certain cultural narratives, lacks robust
empirical evidence. Issues they address include methodological approaches of using growth-
mixture modeling in resilience research and retrospective assessments of growth. To be clear, we
are not investigating whether or not strength can lead to adversity and growth, but rather how the
belief that they can might function as a motivational and meaning-making framework, allowing
people to act conscientiously and derive meaning from life.
To our knowledge, no empirical research has yet examined this mindset as a motivational
construct or its endorsement. Thus, it is not clear whether this psychological construct is actually
an incrementally valid construct, or whether it is only a special case occasion of interpretation of
experienced difficulty as importance. Although there exists a valid and reliable instrument for
assessment of interpretations of ease and difficulty (Fisher & Oyserman, 2017), such an
instrument has not been developed for assessment of difficulty-as-sanctifying, underscoring the
importance of developing and validating measures for this newly-proposed mindset. Finally, it is
unclear whether this construct can explain the relationship between worldview (religiosity,
20
political conservatism) and conscientiousness and meaning in life. To explore these issues, we
developed a working moHence, we build upon Identity-Based Motivation Theory to
conceptualize this newly proposed construct and to develop an assessment tool, which we term
the difficulty-as-sanctifying scale and to examine its convergent, discriminant, and incremental
validity.
Current Studies
We have three aims. First, to develop a measure of difficulty-as-sanctifying mindset.
Second, to document the relationship between endorsement of difficulty-as-sanctifying and other
ease (ease-as-possibility, ease-as-triviality) and difficulty (difficulty-as-importance, difficulty-as-
impossibility, growth mindset, grit) mindsets and character measures (virtues, self-control,
moralization of self-control). Third, to test our prediction that difficulty-as-sanctifying mindset
endorsement is a proximal mediator of the relationship between worldview (religiosity,
conservatism) and personal outcomes. We examine both conscientiousness -- that it is worth
following through and following rules if experiencing difficulty makes one a better person, and
meaning in life -- that life has more meaning if experiencing difficulty has a meaning of
purifying and character building.
Specifically, to address Aim 1 (Studies 1 and 2), we developed an initial set of 20 face
valid items. We examined the reliability and factor structure of this 20-item scale, convergent
and discriminant validity, as well as the association of endorsement of difficulty-as-sanctifying
with age, sex/gender, race/ethnicity, education, and income.
To address Aim 2 (Studies 3 to 7), we created and tested a short 4-item measure from the
highest loading items in our original set. We examined the reliability and factor structure of this
21
4-item scale, convergent and discriminant validity, as well as the association of endorsement of
difficulty-as-sanctifying with age, sex/gender, race/ethnicity, education, and income.
To address Aim 3, we tested difficulty-as-sanctifying endorsement of a mediator of five
relationships (religiosity, conscientiousness; religiosity, meaning in life; conservatism,
conscientiousness; conservatism, meaning in life; self-deceptive enhancement, meaning in life).
Methods
Sample
Participants were adults recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) via the
TurkPrime platform and compensated $1.00 for the 15-minute task (Studies 1, 2, 4, and 6), or
University of Southern California undergraduates who participated for subject pool credit
(Studies 3, 5, and 7). To be able to describe the demographics of our samples, we asked Mturk
participants to report their age, sex/gender, race/ethnicity, education, and income, and student
participants to report their age, sex/gender, race, and year in school. At the end of each study, we
also asked participants to report their political ideology and affiliation, and religiosity and
religious affiliation. Table 1 summarizes age, gender, political conservatism, and religiosity
information for participants. Other demographic information – race-ethnicity, political affiliation,
religious affiliation, level of education, income, and year in school – are summarized in tables in
the Appendix. To make sure that our samples consisted of only unique participants, we restricted
participants so that none had completed related studies (Litman, Robinson, & Abberbock, 2017).
22
Table 1. Sample demographic information.
Materials
Difficulty-as-Sanctifying Mindset
We developed an initial set of 20 face-valid items (presented in Table 3 in the Results
section). In Studies 1 and 2, we used this 20-item DASSA scale and conducted exploratory factor
analysis on these items to discover the four items that loaded most strongly on the most salient
factor (details of analysis can be seen in Results section). In Studies 3-7, we used the final brief
4-item scale. The number of items on the DASSA scale used in each study as well as their
descriptive statistics can be seen in Table 6 in the results section.
Demographic
Variables
Study 1
(N1 = 373)
Study 2 (N2
= 371)
Study 3 (N3
= 476)
Study 4 (N4
= 385)
Study 5 (N5
= 364)
Study 6
(N6 = 189)h
Study 7 (N7
= 368)
Age M (SD) 35.20 (9.4)
34.72
(10.10) 19.38 (8.04)
34.99
(10.38) 20.36 (3.44)
35.50
(10.65) 20.28 (2.66)
% Female
(n)a
50 (N =
186)
45 (N =
165) 69 (N = 330) 50 (N = 192) 70 (N = 254)
44 (N =
82) 75 (N = 277)
Mean
Political
conservatism
M (SD)c 3.39 (1.84) 3.19 (1.68) 3.88 (2.39) 3.49 (1.77) 3.15 (1.4) 3.62 (1.80) 3.05 (1.38)
Mean
Religiosity M
(SD)f 2.42 (1.74) 2.29 (1.67) 2.82 (2.01) 2.64 (1.85) 2.65 (1.61) 2.79 (1.86) 2.91 (1.53)j
23
Ease and Difficulty Mindsets
The following scales were rated on a 6 point scale, 1=strongly disagree, 6=strongly agree.
Difficulty-as-importance mindset. We used Fisher & Oyserman’s (2017) 6-item
measure. Sample item: If a task feels difficult, my gut says that it really matters for me. Alphas:
Study 1, .90; Study 3, .85; Study 4, .91; Study 5, .85; Study 6, .91.
Difficulty-as-impossibility mindset We used Fisher & Oyserman’s (2017) 6-item
measure. Sample item: When I have a gut feeling that something is difficult, then I’m likely to
assume it is impossible for me. Alphas: Study 1, .89; Study 3, .84; Study 4, .93; Study 5, .87;
Study 6, .93.
Ease-as-triviality mindset. We used Fisher & Oyserman’s (2017) 6-item measure.
Sample item: When taking the steps towards a goal that feels easy, I’m likely to think that the
goal is not very important. Alphas: Study 1, .92; Study 3, .79; Study 4, .92; Study 5, .87; Study 6,
.94.
Ease-as-possibility mindset. We used Fisher & Oyserman’s (2017) 6-item measure.
Sample item: I know a goal is possible for me when it feels easy to work on. Alphas: Study 1,
.90; Study 3, .89; Study 4, .86; Study 5, .87; Study 6, .82.
Grit. We used Duckworth and Quinn’s (2009) 8-item short grit scale. Sample item: I am
diligent. Alphas: Study 1, .80; Study 4, .88.
Growth mindset. We used Dweck’s (2000) 8-item growth mindset scale. Sample item:
You can always substantially change how able you are. Alphas: Study 1, .93; Study 4, .94.
Character Measures
The following scales were rated on a 6 point scale, 1=strongly disagree, 6=strongly agree.
24
Self-control. We used Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone’s (2004) 13-item self-control
scale. Sample item: I am good at resisting temptation. Alphas: Study 2, .90; Study 4, .91.
Moralization of self-control. We used 9 items from self-control moralization items used
by Mooijman et al. (2017). Sample item: Being inactive instead of working out (rated on a 6
point scale, 1 = Not at all morally relevant, 6 = Extremely morally relevant). Alpha: Study 5, .81.
Character strengths. We used McGrath’s 24-item Global Assessment of Character
Strengths (GACS-24; 2017) scale in Study 2, and in Study 4, we used only the eight character
traits from this scale that were most correlated with endorsement on DASSA in Study 2 analyses:
Judgment/Critical Thinking, Perseverance, Love, Kindness, Forgiveness/Mercy, Prudence, Self-
Regulation, and Gratitude. Sample item: “Gratitude: Means regularly experiencing and
expressing thankfulness; not taking the good things that happen in your life for granted; tending
to feel blessed in many circumstances. It is natural and effortless for me to feel Gratitude.”
Alphas: Study 2, .90; Study 4, .79.
Measures Related to Conservatism
Political Conservatism. We assessed political conservatism with a single item, “Please
rate your political ideology on a scale of 1 (Very liberal) to 7 (very conservative)” (Jost &
Thompson, 2000) in Studies 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7. In Study 3 we asked “When it comes to politics,
do you think of yourself as liberal, moderate, conservative, or something else? - 1 = very liberal,
2 = moderately liberal, 3 = slightly liberal, 4 = moderate/ middle of the road, 5 = slightly
conservative, 6 = moderately conservative, 7 = very conservative.” Summary of political
affiliation can be seen in the Appendix.
Self-deceptive enhancement. We assessed self-deceptive enhancement with the self-
deceptive enhancement items from Paulhus’ (1994) Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding
25
Scale. Sample item: I never regret my decisions (rated on a 7-point scale, 1=strongly disagree,
7=strongly agree). Alpha: Study 7, .68.
Economic system-justification. We use Jost & Thompson’s (2000) economic system
justification scale. Sample item: Economic positions are legitimate reflections of people’s
achievements (rated on a 7-point scale, 1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree). Alpha: Study 7,
.62.
Religiosity
We measured religiosity with a single item in each study. Empirically, one-item and
multi-item measures of religiosity have high convergence, produce the same patterns of
associations with personality scales, and are stable over short periods of time (Afhami,
Mohammadi-Zarghan, & Atari, 2017). In Studies 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, we used the item “How
religious are you?” (1= not at all religious, to 6= very religious). The item we used in one of the
student samples, Study 3, was “Thinking about your life these days, how often do you attend
religious services, apart from social obligations such as weddings or funerals?” (1 = never, 2 =
once a year or less, 3 = a few times a year, 4 = every other month, 5 = once a month, 6 = a few
times a month, 7 = once a week, 8 = several times per week). In the last student sample, Study 7,
we used three items: (1) How spiritual or religious are you? (2) Overall, how important would
you say are your spiritual beliefs or personal faith in your life? (3) How central to who you are as
a person are your spiritual or religious beliefs? (1=not at all, 6=very much) (Newman et al.,
2018). In studies 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, we also included a question to assess religious affiliation,
“Which religion do you identify with?” with 8 answer choices. Summary of religious affiliation
can be seen in the Appendix.
26
Outcome Variables
Meaning in Life. We used George and Park’s (2017) 15-item Multidimensional
Existential Meaning Scale. Sample item: I am certain that my life is of importance (rated on a 7-
point scale, 1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree). Alphas: Study 5, .87; Study 6, .89; Study 7,
.91.
Conscientiousness. We used John and Srivastava’s (1999) 9-item conscientiousness
scale from the Big Five Inventory. Sample item: I see myself as someone who Perseveres until
the task is finished (rated on a 6-point scale, 1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree). Alphas:
Study 1, .89; Study 4, .77.
Procedure
Data Collection
The procedure in each Qualtrics-administered study was as follows: Participants were
welcomed to answer online questionnaires (10-15 minutes) about how they interpret the world
around them. They were informed of the voluntary and anonymous nature of the study, provided
consent, rated their endorsement of statements, and gave demographic information. Participants
first read and responded to statements (difficulty mindsets and character scales), then described
their political ideology and religiosity, and then answered demographic questions. Scales were
presented in blocks, with the order of scale presentation within block randomized and items
within each scale also randomized. Table 2 presents the scales used in each block of each study.
The exception to this general procedure is Studies 3 and 5: in these studies, data were collected
as part of a larger data collection effort with multiple researchers. To accommodate the fact that
multiple researchers had parts of the sample, respondents saw a single block of all of the scales
in a fixed order with the items within each scale randomized once rather than for each
27
participant. Following Hauser and Schwarz (2016), we included the item “For this question,
please check the box that says "Strongly Agree" to show us that you are reading each statement”
twice as an attentional check. The three or four people in each study who failed one or both of
these attention checks were not included in our analyses (see Hauser & Schwarz, 2016).
Table 2. Scales included in each block of each study
Study # Study
sample
Block 1 Block 2 Block 3
1 Mturk DASSA Difficulty-as-
Importance,
Difficulty-as-
Impossibility,
Ease-as-
Triviality, Ease-
as-Possibility
Conscientiousness, Grit,
Growth mindset
2 Mturk DASSA Character virtues,
Self-control
3 Undergrad-
uates
DASSA, Difficulty-as-
Importance, Difficulty-as-
Impossibility, Ease-as-
Triviality, Ease-as-
Possibility
4 Mturk DASSA Difficulty-as-
Importance,
Difficulty-as-
Conscientiousness, Grit,
Growth mindset, Self-
control, Character virtues
28
Impossibility,
Ease-as-
Triviality, Ease-
as-Possibility
5 Undergrad-
uates
DASSA, Moralization of
self-control, Difficulty-as-
Importance, Difficulty-as-
Impossibility, Ease-as-
Triviality, Ease-as-
Possibility, Meaning in Life
6 Mturk Meaning in Life DASSA Difficulty-as-Importance,
Difficulty-as-Impossibility,
Ease-as-Triviality, Ease-as-
Possibility
7 Undergrad
uates
DASSA, Meaning in Life,
Self-deceptive
enhancement, Economic
system justification
Power and Stop Rules
For Aim 1, we wished to have enough power to detect small effects. We used G Power
software to compute required sample size. The suggested sample size was 360 participants. We
aimed to collect data from 400 participants. Due to missing data from some participants, we
eventually had 373 participants for Study 1 and 371 for Study 2. Study 1 was pre-registered
(https://aspredicted.org/he223.pdf) on the Aspredicted platform, #6011.
29
For Aims 2 and 3, we wished to have enough power for small to moderate sized effects.
Suggested sample size in G Power was 360, except for Study 6, where it was 150. To be
conservative with our estimates, we always aimed to collect data from more participants than
what was suggested. For Study 3, done with undergraduates, we collected data until the end of
the semester. For Studies 4, 5, and 7, we collected data until we had 400 participants (some data
were discarded due to missingness). For Study 6, we collected data until we had 200 participants.
Study 7 was preregistered (https://aspredicted.org/se4nw.pdf) on the Aspredicted platform,
#14633.
Results
Statistical analyses were conducted in three parts, in line with our three aims. First, in
order to establish that we can measure a difficulty-as-sanctifying mindset with a reliable and
valid measure, we examined reliability coefficients of the DASSA and its factor structure.
Second, in order to demonstrate that this mindset is distinct from other difficulty mindsets and
character measures, we examined convergent and discriminant validity. Third, to show that this
mindset is able to explain the relationship between worldview and meaning in life and
conscientiousness we conducted mediation analyses.
Aim 1. Internal Consistency and Factor Structure
Internal Consistency
Both the 20-item (Study 1, α = .94; Study 2 α = .93) and the 4-item (Study 3, α = .85;
Study 4, α = .89; Study 5, α = .84; Study 6 α = .87; Study 7, α = .82) DASSA scales attained
good to excellent reliability following Tavakol and Dennick (2011) rule of thumb that above .80
is good and above .90 is excellent. People on average tended to agree that difficulty was
30
sanctifying as reflected in their mean endorsement (Study 1, M = 3.96, SD = 0.92; Study 2, M =
3.94, SD = 0.87; Study 3, M = 4.50, SD = 0.95; Study 4, M = 4.46, SD = 1.11; Study 5, M =
4.88, SD = 0.82; Study 6, M = 4.60, SD = 0.96; Study 7, M = 4.69, SD = 0.79). The variation
around the mean in each study suggests that two thirds of participants are in the range between
agreeing (scored as 5) and somewhat disagreeing (scored as 3). Details can be seen in Table 6.
Factor Structure
Analysis Plan for Factor Analysis
The ratio of sample size to number of items was calculated and compared with standard
recommendations for factor analytic purposes (Clark & Watson, 1995). We used quartimax
rotation because of the expectation of a single factor (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, &
Strahan, 1999; Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 2013). The number of factors to be extracted was
determined by factor eigenvalues (λ) above 1.0 (the EGV1 criterion), examination of the scree-
plot, and where more than one factor was identified through rotation, the results of parallel
analysis (Hayton, Allen, & Scarpello, 2004).
We specifically used O’Connor’s (2000) syntax to conduct parallel analysis, which was
used because scree-plot inspection and the EGV1 criterion are known to lead to factor over-
retention (Henson & Roberts, 2006; O’Connor, 2000; Patil, McPherson, Friesner, 2010). Parallel
analysis creates random datasets with the same number of cases and variables as the actual
dataset. Factors in the actual data are only retained if their eigenvalues are greater than the mean
of eigenvalues (with 95% CI) from the random data (Hayton et al., 2004). Factor loadings were
interpreted using Tabachnick and Fidell's (2007) recommendations (i.e., > .71 = excellent, > .63
= very good, > .55 = good, > .45 = fair, and between .44 and .32 = poor) and highly cross-
loading items were discarded to achieve simple structure (see Thurstone, 1947). As we intended
31
for a short scale, items with loadings smaller than .63, as well as cross-loading items were
selected to be dropped.
Using datasets from Studies 3, 4, 5, and 6, we conducted four distinct confirmatory factor
analyses (CFAs) to confirm the factor structure of the scale derived from exploratory analyses in
Studies 1 and 2. We assessed model fit using the chi-square index (χ2), normed chi-square
(χ2/df), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), root
mean square of the residuals (RMSR), and comparative fit index (CFI). These values are
presented in Table 5. Non-significant χ2 indicates good fit; however, this index is sensitive to
sample size and is usually significant in large samples, therefore normed chi-square (χ2/df)
values of lower than 3.00 indicate good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The RMSEA index and its 90%
confidence interval (CI) provide a correction for model complexity where values lower than .06
indicate very good fit and values between .06 and .10 indicate mediocre fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Following liberal recommendations, CFI values of .90 and higher indicate good fit for a model.
Finally, the reliability of items was examined via Cronbach’s α.
Exploratory Factor Analyses
For examining the structure of the DASSA, we first conducted analyses using the 20-item
DASSA combined datasets from Studies 1 and 2 to have a large ratio of sample size to item pool
size. The ratio of sample size to number of items was 37.2 which is higher than standard
recommendations for factor analytic purposes (Kline, 2015). Tests of normality of distribution
showed that the univariate skewness and kurtosis of the items were lower than recommended
limits (Kline, 2015). The KMO measure of sampling adequacy suggested that the items had
adequate common variance for factor analysis (KMO = .95), and Bartlett's test of sphericity,
χ2(190) = 7710.67, p < .001, indicated that the correlation matrix was factorable. Three
32
eigenvalues larger than one emerged (8.97, 1.41, 1.39). Consistently, parallel analysis (the data
driven method; O’Connor, 2000), suggested retention of three factors. All items and their
loadings are presented in Table 3.
Upon examination of the items that loaded onto the two factors, F2 and F3, we saw that
Factor 2 mostly included items that focus on character and hard work (“A good indication of my
character is whether I shirk hard work.”), and Factor 3 included items mentioning God (“In the
Old Testament, it says, "I will bring that group through the fire and make them pure," to me that
means that people come closer to God when they take on hardships.”). Our aim was to choose
items that strongly capture the notion of becoming elevated, enhanced, and purified through
experiencing or overcoming difficulty, and most items pertaining to Factor 2, although talking
about character, did not quite depict this process. We also wished to be careful not to include
items that explicitly mentioned God, so as not to present people who do not believe in God with
a double-barreled question. Thus, we examined the four items that had the highest loadings on
the most salient factor, Factor 1. These items all entailed the notion of becoming better, purer,
stronger through difficulty - two of them explicitly mentioned the overcoming of difficulty.
Since these items had high loadings and captured our construct well, we retained them to form a
short 4-item scale (see Table 4). We discarded other items (see Table 3).
33
Table 3. Factor Structure of the 20-item Difficulty-as-sanctifying (DASSA) scale, Studies 1 & 2
No. Item
Factors
F1 F2 F3
18
Every difficulty you overcome makes your spirit and soul grow
stronger.
.76 -.12 .07
19
Difficulty is the strongest of teachers; difficulty bends or breaks
you temporarily but purifies you in the long run.
.76 -.07 -.11
4
In a way, the struggles I have today are purifying my character to
meet tomorrow's challenges.
.75 .03 .07
20
Your spiritual journey through life cannot be complete without
adversity, hardship, and overcoming suffering.
.74 -.05 .14
9
Just like the saying “diamonds are lumps of coal that did well under
pressure” says, your best character is revealed after tough times.
.74 -.08 -.15
5
Even gold is tested for genuineness by fire, trials by fire reveal
character.
.70 -.03 -.11
15
Sometimes I think that hard work can build my character, it is a
spiritual thing.
.69 -.03 .26
12
In a way, hard work makes you purer, getting through it makes you
cleaner.
.68 .11 .16
7 Every difficulty you go through helps you build character. .66 -.04 -.18
13
To me the saying: "That which doesn't kill me makes me stronger" is
about the idea that difficulty can be a spiritual journey.
.66 -.08 .22
17
You cannot become an enlightened person without experiencing
hardships and difficulty first.
.65 .05 -.11
6
If you always take the easy path in life, you will never build
character.
.62 .25 -.15
16*
Like the saying “God helps those who help themselves,” you gain
God’s favor through hard work.
.60 .05 .52
14*
In the Old Testament, it says, "I will bring that group through the fire
and make them pure," to me that means that people come closer to
God when they take on hardships.
.57 .01 .50
34
10*
As the saying goes, “the teacher is always quiet during an exam;”
when times are tough, you need to rely on your own character.
.57 .06 -.05
11*
Some people say: "cleanliness is next to Godliness," for me, I think
the saying might be "hard work sanctifies."
.55 .12 .41
8*
Your actions when things are going your way don’t reveal as much
about your character as the way you act under difficulty does.
.54 .00 -.21
2* A good indication of my character is whether I shirk hard work. .52 .41 .03
1*
I know in my gut that people who dislike hard work are not to be
trusted, it reflects badly on their character.
.47 .65 .08
3*
I think that people who dislike hard work usually have a weakness of
character.
.55 .61 -.02
Note. The final 4-item scale has been bolded. *Item was discarded.
4-item DASSA-Scale
After taking the four items from the 20 item scale that had the strongest loadings on the
most salient factor, we had a brief, four-item scale, which can be seen in Table H.
Table 4. DASSA, Difficulty-as-Sanctifying Scale.
Item #
1 Every difficulty you overcome makes your spirit and soul grow stronger.
2 Difficulty is the strongest of teachers; difficulty bends or breaks you temporarily but purifies you in the long run.
3 In a way, the struggles I have today are purifying my character to meet tomorrow's challenges.
4 Your spiritual journey through life cannot be complete without adversity, hardship, and overcoming suffering.
*Permission to use this scale is not required. For each item, the following response scale should be used: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2
= Disagree, 3 = Slightly Disagree, 4 = Slightly Agree, 5 = Agree, 6 = Strongly Agree.
35
Confirmatory Factor Analyses
Using datasets from Studies 3, 4, 5, and 6, we ran four distinct CFAs to check whether
the one-dimensional structure of the 4-item holds across different samples. Notably, all samples
were large enough for confirmatory factor analysis (N of at least 250; Hu & Bentler, 1999). As
shown in the Table 5, CFIs and TLIs are high across studies. RMSEA is acceptable in Study 4,
but falls out of the conventional interval for acceptable fit. SRMR is acceptable across studies.
Of note, we did not apply any modification to the model by co-varying error terms.
Table 5. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (Studies 3, 4, 5, and 6)
Study 2 2/df CFI TLI RMSEA 90% CI RMSEA SRMR
Study 3 8.20 4.10 .992 .977 .081 [.029,.141] .017
Study 4 14.16 7.08 .986 .959 .121 [.067,.184] .021
Study 5 10.29 5.14 .990 .971 .104 [.048,.171] .017
Study 6 0.85 0.43 1.00 1.00 .000 [.000, .112] .008
Table 6. Descriptive Statistics of the DASSA (Studies 1-7)
Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Study 4 Study 5 Study 6 Study 7
Sample size 373 371 476 385 364 189 368
Sample
population
Mturk Mturk Student Mturk Student Mturk Student
Number of items 20 20 4 4 4 4 4
Cronbach’s α .94 .93 .85 .89 .84 .87 .82
M 3.96 3.94 4.50 4.46 4.88 4.60 4.69
SD .92 .87 .95 1.11 .82 .96 .79
36
Aim 2. Convergent and Discriminant Validity of DASSA
Analysis Plan
Part two of our analyses focused on convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of
the DASSA scale by examining correlations with other theoretically related measures.
Convergent validity involves finding overlap in theoretically linked measures, operationalized as
a correlation significantly different from zero (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). Discriminant validity
involves finding that theoretically novel measures are distinct from related ones, operationalized
as correlations below .85 in absolute magnitude (Kline, 2015).
We also conducted a single-paper meta-analysis, using the data from all seven studies in
this research, in order to provide meta-analytic evidence for convergence between the scores on
DASSA and four related lay theories of ease and difficulty, based on identity-based motivation
theory (Fisher & Oyserman, 2017). Meta-analyses were conducted using R programming
language v.3.4.2 (R Core Team, 2017) using the metafor statistical package (Viechtbauer, 2010).
Results can be seen in the Appendix.
Subgroup Analyses
To interpret correlations, we used Cohen’s (1988) correlation size rule of thumb (.1
small, .3 moderate, .5 large). Table 7 summarizes the correlations with demographics, which are
mostly not significant, and the correlations with political conservatism and religiosity, which are
significant.
Age, Gender, Education, Income
People of different ages did not differ in their endorsement of the idea that difficulty is
sanctifying as reflected in nonsignificant correlations with these variables, as detailed in Table 7.
With regard to gender, there was no significant difference except for in Study 1, where we found
37
that women (M = 4.06, SD = 0.92) tended to score higher the DASSA than did men (M = 3.85,
SD = 0.91), Welch-corrected t(370.91) = 2.21, p < .05, Cohen’s d = 0.23. This difference was
small in magnitude. With regard to education, there was a significant correlation only in one
study, where people with a higher education tended to endorse the sanctification of difficulty
mindset less (Study 5, r(364) = -.11, p < .05, 95% CI [-.22, -.01]). With regard to income, in four
studies in which income information was obtained, we found no significant relationship with the
sanctification mindset in Studies 1 and 6, but a small positive relationship in Studies 2 and 4
(Study 2, r(371) = .15, p < .01, 95% CI [.04, .25]; Study 5, r(385) = .13, p < .05 95% CI [.03,
.23]), such that people with a higher household income in Studies 2 and 5 were slightly more
likely to endorse a sanctification of difficulty mindset.
Table 7. Correlations of DASSA with Demographic Characteristics (Studies 1-7)
Study
Political
conservatism Religiosity a Age Gender Educationb Income
Study 1 .31*** (.21, .41) .42*** (.32, .52) .10 (.00, .20) .11* (.01, .22) -.09 (-.19, .01)
.09 (-.01,
.19)
Study 2 .38*** (.29, .48) .30*** (.20, .40) .05 (-.05, .15) -.03 (-.14, .07) .03 (-.07, .13)
.15**
(.04, .25)
Study 3 .14** (.05, .23) .14** (.05, .23) -.01 (-.1, .08) .03 (-.06, .12) -.03 (-.12, .07) --
Study 4 .27*** (.17, .36) .34*** (.25, .44) -.03 (-.13, 07) .02 (-.08, .12) -.01 (-.11, .09)
.13* (.03,
.23)
Study 5 .11* (.00, .21) .19*** (.08, .29) .05 (-.06, .16) .02 (-.08, .13) -.11* (-.22, -.01) --
Study 6 .18* (.04, .32) .27*** (.13, .41) .10 (-.05, .24) .05 (-.09, .19) -.02 (-.16, .13)
-.06 (-.20,
.09)
Study 7 .16** (.06, .26) .23*** (.13, .33) .06 (-.04, .16) -.06 (-.16, .04) -.06 (-.16, .04) --
38
aIn Study 3, religiosity was assessed with the item, “Thinking about your life these days, how often do you attend religious
services, apart from social obligations such as weddings or funerals?” In Study 7, religiosity/ spirituality was assessed with the
three items: “How spiritual or religious are you?”; “Overall, how important would you say are your spiritual beliefs or personal
faith in your life?”; “How central to who you are as a person are your spiritual or religious beliefs?” bIn Studies 3, 5, and 7,
education was assessed with the item, “Please enter your year in school.”
Political Conservatism
People who identified as politically conservative tended to endorse the idea that difficulty
is sanctifying more as reflected in a significant correlation between endorsement of the DASSA
and political conservatism. The size of correlation varied from small in subject pool to small-to-
moderate among non-student adults.
Religiosity
People who described themselves as more religious tended to endorse the idea that
difficulty is sanctifying more as reflected in a significant correlation between endorsement of the
DASSA and religiosity. The size of correlation varied from small in subject pool to moderate
among Mturk participants.
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
Bivariate correlations of DASSA with ease and difficulty mindsets are presented in Table
8, and bivariate correlations with character qualities are presented in Table 9.
39
Table 8. Correlations of DASSA with ease and difficulty mindsets
Study
# Ease-as-Triviality Ease-as-Possibility
Difficulty-as-
Importance
Difficulty-as-
Impossibility
Growth
Mindset Grit
1
.29*** (.20, .39) .30*** (.20, .39)
.68*** (.60, .75) .00 (-.11, .10)
.25***
(.15, .35)
.36***
(.27, .46)
3 .08 (-.01, .17) .24*** (.15, .32) .46*** (.38, .54) -.13** (-.22, -.04) -- --
4
.12* (.02, .22) .28*** (.19, .38)
.59*** (.51, .67) -.12* (-.22, -.02)
.24***
(.14, .34)
.21***
(.11, .30)
5 .01 (-.09, 12) .08 (-.02, .19) .36*** (.26, .46) -.22*** (-.33, -.12) --
6 -.11 (-.25, .04) .27*** (.13, .41) .40*** (.27, .53) -.21** (-.35, -.07) -- --
Difficulty-As-Importance. We assessed difficulty-as-importance in Studies 1, 3, 4, 5,
and 6. People who endorsed the belief that difficulty is sanctifying also endorsed the belief that
experienced difficulty is a signal of task importance. The magnitude of the correlation with
DASSA ranged from moderate to large, but never attained the .85 cut-off implying redundancy
(the measures are not isomorphic). The meta-analytic correlation between DASSA and difficulty
as importance is .58, p < .01, 95% CI [.45, .71]. The forest plot is presented in Figure 6 in the
Appendix.
Difficulty-As-Impossibility. We assessed difficulty-as-impossibility in Studies 1, 3, 4, 5,
and 6. People who endorse the belief that difficulty is sanctifying generally disagreed that
experienced difficulty was a signal of task impossibility. Only in Study 1 was there no significant
correlation. The magnitude of the correlation with DASSA was small across the studies and the
length of the DASSA did not influence these relationships. The meta-analytic correlation
between DASSA and difficulty-as-impossibility was r = -.14, p < .01. The forest plot is
presented in Figure 7 in Appendix.
40
Ease-As-Triviality. We assessed ease-as-triviality in Studies 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Only in
studies 1 and 4 did people who endorse the belief that difficulty is sanctifying also tend to
believe that experiencing ease might signal task triviality, though the association was small-to-
moderate sized. The meta-analytic correlation between DASSA and ease-as-triviality was r =
.13, 95% CI [.02, .24], p = .02. The forest plot is presented in Figure 8 in Appendix.
Ease-As-Possibility. We assessed ease-as-possibility in Studies 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Across
the studies except for Study 5, people who endorsed the belief that difficulty is sanctifying
tended to agree that ease signals possibility. There was a small-to-moderate sized correlation
between endorsement of DASSA and endorsement of ease as possibility across the studies. The
meta-analytic correlation between scores on the DASSA and ease-as-possibility was r = .24, p <
.01. The forest plot is presented in Figure 9 in Appendix.
Growth Mindset. We assessed growth mindset in studies 1 and 4. Across these studies,
people who endorsed the belief that difficulty is sanctifying tended to endorse the belief that one
can significantly change and grow their abilities. The size of the correlation was small-to-
moderate.
Grit. We assessed grit in studies 1 and 4. People who endorsed the belief that difficulty is
sanctifying tended to score higher on the grit scale. The correlation was small-to-moderate.
Table 9. Correlations of DASSA with character qualities
Study # Self-control Moralization of self-control Character Strengths
2 . 22*** (.12, .32) -- .49*** (.40, .58)
4 .15** (.05, .24) -- .34*** (.24, .43)
5 -- .24*** (.13, .34) --
41
Self-Control. We assessed self-control in studies 2 and 4. There was a small positive
correlation in both studies.
Moralization of Self-Control. We assessed moralization of self-control in Study 5.
People who endorsed difficulty-as-sanctifying also tended to see self-control as a moral issue.
The correlation was moderate in size.
Character Strengths. We assessed character strengths in studies 2 and 4. Individuals
who endorsed difficulty-as-sanctifying tended to score higher on character strengths. There was a
moderate-to-large correlation in both studies.
Correlations of DASSA with Constructs Relating to Conservatism in Study 7
Self-deceptive Enhancement. We assessed Self-deceptive enhancement in Study 7.
People higher in their endorsement of DASSA also tended to engage in more self-deceptive
enhancement (r(368) = .11, p<.05, 95% CI [.01, .22]).
Economic System Justification. We assessed Economic system justification in Study 7.
There was no significant relationship with endorsement of DASSA (r(368) = .04, 95% CI [-.06,
.14].
Aim 3. Explanatory Power for Meaning in Life and Conscientiousness
In order to show that a difficulty-as-sanctifying mindset may be able to explain the reason
conservative people and religious people display conscientiousness, as well as the reason they
report experiencing more meaning in life, we ran mediation analyses for each study, as well as
for datasets combined from multiple studies. Table 10 summarizes results for analyses for
conscientiousness, and Table 11 summarizes results for meaning in life. Figure 1 shows the
42
mediation model for conservatism and conscientiousness from data from Studies 1 and 4; Figure
2 for religiosity and conscientiousness from data from Studies 1 and 4; Figure 3 for conservatism
and meaning in life from data from Studies 5, 6, and 7; Figure 4 for religiosity and meaning in
life from data from Studies 5, 6, and 7. When looking at conservatism as our predictor variable,
we controlled for religiosity, and when looking at religiosity as our predictor variable, we
controlled for conservatism. Following Hayes (2017), we report individual paths, indirect effect
confidence interval, as well as two effect sizes.
Table 10. Mediation analysis with worldview as predictor variable, difficulty-as-sanctifying as
mediator, and conscientiousness as outcome variable.
Study #
Predictor
variable
a-path b-path
Total
effect
Direct
effect
Indirect
effect
Effect size 1
(Completely
standardized
indirect effect of
X on Y, 95% CI)
Effect size
2 (ratio of
indirect to
total
effect)
1 Conser-vatism
.077** .250*** .024 .005
.019 (.003,
.036)
(.008, .085) .791
1 Reli-giosty .186**
*
.250*** .082** .036
.046 (.026,
.072)
(.057, .159) .561
4 Conser-vatism
.084* .140*** .028 .017
.012 (.002,
.026)
(.005, .061) .429
4 Reli-giosty .186**
*
.140*** .044* .018
.026 (.011,
.043)
(.027, .110) .591
1 & 4 Conser-vatism .080**
*
.115*** .039* .030
.009 (.003,
.018)
(.006, .040) .231
1 & 4 Reli-giosty .196**
*
.014 .036 .014
.023 (.011,
.035)
(.025, .082) .639
43
Figure 1. Mediation model for conservatism, difficulty-as-sanctifying, and conscientiousness,
adjusting for religiosity; combined datasets from Studies 1 and 4.
Figure 2. Mediation model for religiosity, difficulty-as-sanctifying, and conscientiousness,
adjusting for conservatism; combined datasets from Studies 1 and 4.
Difficulty-as-sanctifying mediated the relationship between conservatism and
conscientiousness in each study, adjusting for religiosity, and the relationship between religiosity
and conscientiousness, adjusting for conservatism.
44
Table 11. Mediation analysis with worldview as predictor variable, difficulty-as-sanctifying as
mediator, and meaning in life as outcome variable.
Study
#
Predictor
variable
a-path b-path
Total
effect
Direct
effect
Indirect
effect
Effect size 1
(Completely
standardized
indirect
effect of X
on Y, 95%
CI)
Effect size 2
(ratio of
indirect to
total effect)
5 Conservatism
.027 .373*** .009 -.0008
.010 (-.015,
.036)
(-.024, .059) 1.11
5 Religiosity
.087** .373*** .117*** .084**
.032 (.012,
.056)
(.022, .105) .274
6 Conservatism
.044 .296*** .054 .041
.013 (-.013.
.038)
(-.024, .069) .241
6 Religiosity
.122** .296*** .141*** .105**
.036 (.011,
.068)
(.022, .128) .257
7 Conservatism
.053 .286*** .094** .079*
.015 (-.001,
.035)
(-.002, .052) .160
7 Religiosity
.102*** .286*** .133*** .104***
.029 (.011,
.051)
(.019, .086) .218
5,6,7 Conservatism
.039* .311*** .055** .043*
.012 (-
.0001,
.024)
(-.0002,
.041)
.218
5,6,7 Religiosity
.098*** .311*** .127*** .096***
.030 (.013,
.044)
(.034, .080) .236
45
Figure 3. Mediation model for conservatism, difficulty-as-sanctifying, and meaning in life,
adjusting for religiosity; combined datasets from Studies 5, 6, and 7.
Figure 4. Mediation model for religiosity, difficulty-as-sanctifying, and meaning in life,
adjusting for conservatism; combined datasets from Studies 5, 6, and 7.
Difficulty-as-sanctifying mediated the relationship between religiosity and meaning in
life in each study, adjusting for conservatism, but not the relationship between conservatism and
meaning in life, adjusting for religiosity.
46
Self-deceptive enhancement and meaning in life. We predicted that a difficulty-as-
sanctifying mindset would be able to explain the relationship between self-deceptive
enhancement and meaning in life. As can be seen in Figure 5, we found a significant mediation
in Study 7 (indirect effect = .03, 95% CI = [.01, .07].
Figure 5. Mediation analysis from Study 7.
Discussion
Cultural notions such as hero’s journey narratives, religious teachings, and political
ideology all imply that not only are difficulties and pain unavoidable in life, but they may also be
legitimately valuable experiences, helping build character and enhancing spirit. They provide an
explanatory framework for understanding suffering - that overcoming suffering sanctifies - and
this framework allows people socialized into some of these worldviews to experience more
meaning in life. Moreover, this framework also explains why people socialized into these
worldviews are more conscientious. Believing in the value to be gained from experiencing
hurdles can give these people the motivation to act responsibly and act ethically even in the face
of difficulty.
47
Although this perspective on difficulties and suffering is widespread in religious and
cultural teachings, it has not yet been studied as a difficulty mindset in the social psychological
literature. The literature details how lay theories about the implications of ease and difficulty -
ease and difficulty mindsets people use to make sense out of their experiences - matter for
motivation, engagement, and striving. We distinguished between expectancy-based mindsets;
difficulty-as-impossibility, ease-as-possibility, growth mindset, and grit, which all focus
attention on the expected probability of success, and value-based mindsets; difficulty-as-
importance and ease-as-triviality, which focus attention on the value to be gained from success.
While the expectancy-based mindsets teach that engagement is worthy because of likelihood of
attaining a desired result and value-based mindsets teach that engagement can be worthy because
of the value of the desired result, they do not draw attention to the value that can be gained from
engagement in and of itself. The construct we propose, difficulty-as-sanctifying mindset,
addresses this gap as it is the belief that one can become better as a result of being challenged
and experiencing difficulty, no matter the outcome. It is the engagement with the difficulty that
makes one better. Hence, endorsement of this mindset should motivate people to lean into the
difficulty.
On top of being a motivational framework, this mindset is also instrumental in the
creation of hero narratives. Becoming sanctified and elevated above the mundane through
experiencing difficulty is a crucial leg of the hero’s journey, the narrative template that Joseph
Campbell suggested many myths and stories around the world follow. This theme is not only
found in hero narratives, but may also play a significant role in the creation of modern-day
heroes - those who accept or willingly engage in difficulty for the sake of a higher purpose, who
thus act conscientiously and experience meaning in their endeavors. Heroes play an important
48
role as leaders in society. People find them moral and trustworthy because more often than not,
they have been through the fire and yet have stayed devoted to their values and ideals even in the
face of difficulty. Through signaling their resilience and virtue, they become people fit to be
leaders of society. In this sense, becoming sanctified - that is, consecrated and worthy of respect
through overcoming difficulty - may have played an important role in the evolution of human
societies through designating those who are fit to lead. Those who do not engage properly with
difficulty, or those who have not experienced any difficulty in their lives, usually do not signal
strong character or heroism, and are thus not attractive leaders.
Through religious teachings and cultural notions such as the hero’s journey, this mindset
allows people to make sense of their own challenges and suffering, and can act as a meaning-
making framework. When one experiences pain or difficulty, and interprets it as a punishment
for wrongdoing, the pain can be exacerbated. However, if one views the experience of difficulty
as an outlet to become stronger, better, and more respect-worthy, one can garner motivation to
engage with the experience, to find ways to overcome the challenge, to build one’s courage and
resilience. In addition to functioning as a forward-looking meaning making lens, this mindset can
also help people to come to terms with their past suffering by allowing them to see the ways in
which they may have become sanctified through the experience.
Summary of Findings
Scale Validity
Our aims with our research were threefold. Our first aim was to investigate whether the
difficulty-as-sanctifying mindset is a construct that exists in people’s minds, and whether we can
develop a scale with which to measure this mindset. In our first two studies, we tested 20 face
valid items, looked at associations with difficulty mindsets and character traits, and conducted
49
exploratory factor analysis. Taking the items that were highest loading on the main factor, we
developed a brief 4-item difficulty-as-sanctifying scale – DASSA – that we used in subsequent
studies. CFA in subsequent studies suggested a valid and reliable scale. Agreement on the 20-
item scale in the first two studies was on average very close to and slightly below the “slightly
agree” option. Agreement on the 4-item scale in subsequent studies was on average between the
“slightly agree” and “agree” options.
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
Our second aim was to investigate to what extent this mindset is associated with and
distinct from related constructs - ease mindsets (ease-as-possibility, ease-as-triviality), difficulty
mindsets (difficulty-as-importance, difficulty-as-impossibility, growth mindset, grit), and
character traits (self-control, moralization of self-control, character strengths). None of the
correlations passed our cutoff rule (.85), supporting the discriminant validity of our scale.
Ease-as-possibility We found a small-to-moderate positive association between the
difficulty-as-sanctifying mindset and ease-as-possibility, except for in Study 5, where the
confidence interval included zero. Thus, difficulty-as-sanctifying is correlated with an
expectancy-based mindset. When people believe that a hardship can be valuable and sanctifying
for the self, they also generally believe that if something is easy, it is likely possible to attain.
Ease-as-triviality Difficulty-as-sanctifying related to ease-as-triviality somewhat
inconsistently: in two studies we found a small-to-moderate positive association, and in three
studies the confidence interval for the correlation included zero. Although it may be intuitive to
conclude that the value-based mindset, believing that difficulties are valuable and sanctifying for
the self, also entails the value-based mindset, believing that if something feels easy, it might not
be a worthwhile pursuit, we find that these two value-based beliefs do not necessarily go hand in
50
hand. One may think that overcoming difficulties is elevating and sanctifying while also
believing that there may be value in pursuing easy things.
Difficulty-as-importance There was a consistent, moderate-to-large positive association
between difficulty-as-sanctifying and the value-based mindset, difficulty-as-importance. People
become likely to interpret the difficulty they experience as signaling task value if the task feels
congruent with a currently on-the-mind identity (Aelenei, Lewis, & Oyserman, 2017; Oyserman
et al., 2018), and persist more if they come to see the difficulty as implying importance
(Oyserman, 2007, 2009), but this mindset focuses on whether the current experience feels
relevant and is thus important for the self – not on the value to be gained from engaging with the
difficulty itself and how the self may improve as a result of overcoming the difficulty. The
difficulty-as-sanctifying mindset focuses on these missing links, and thus is associated with but
distinct from difficulty-as-importance. An example illustrating the difference between these
mindsets could be having to clean up one’s house. One might dislike the tasks associated with
cleaning, not seeing these as identity-congruent activities, and thus may not see this errand as
important, postponing it. On the other hand, one may become motivated through believing that
convincing oneself to rise to the challenge and being able to overcome the difficulty of cleaning,
in and of itself could be beneficial for the self – either because it will lend one more self-respect,
more self-confidence, or more discipline. Another example could be an unchosen difficulty –
something like loss in the family. The difficulty of going through such an experience is unlikely
to be interpreted as signaling value and importance. Yet, one can choose to engage with the
experience and try to understand and make sense of one’s emotional reactions throughout the
process, believing that as a result of this engagement, one may become more enlightened and
51
elevated above the pain. Perceiving the suffering in this way could alleviate it and help one
derive meaning from it.
Difficulty-as-impossibility We found a small, negative association with difficulty-as-
impossibility except for in Study 1, where there was no correlation. The value-based mindset,
difficulty-as-importance and expectancy-based mindset, difficulty-as-impossibility, are
orthogonal; people can endorse that something is important while also endorsing that it can be
impossible to attain. Thus, it is also possible that people can endorse that an experience can be
strengthening and elevating while believing that it might also be impossible to attain. At the
same time, it seems that people mostly disagree that if difficulty is sanctifying, it is impossible to
attain. This may be because people make sense of abstract ideas through their own experiences
and lives. Once one is able to imagine how an experience of difficulty could be elevating and
sanctifying for oneself, one is likely to also imagine how one could go about experiencing that
process, making it less likely for them to view it as impossible to attain.
Growth mindset We found a consistent, small-to-moderate positive association with
growth mindset. This is also an expectancy-based mindset, in that people ask themselves whether
with effort they expect to change and improve. This belief is related to seeing difficulties as
avenues for building character, becoming better and purer. Yet, difficulty-as-sanctifying is
distinct from growth mindset because it is not asking about whether one can change through
effort – rather it teaches that leaning into difficulty is in itself valuable and beneficial for
character and soul.
Grit We found a consistent, small-to-moderate positive association with grit. Grit is
another expectancy-based mindset – people decide whether success is likely by asking
themselves if they are the kind of person who stays the course when the going gets tough. Yet,
52
this mindset does not tell one about why one should stay resilient and persevere through such
situations. Difficulty-as-sanctifying tells us why – it is because the perseverance and the
engagement will enhance, elevate, and sanctify.
Self-control and moralization of self-control We found a consistent small-to-moderate
positive association with self-control and moralization of self-control. Self-control measures to
what extent one is able to forsake immediate pleasure and gain for long-term rewards (Tangney,
Baumeister, and Boone, 2004) and moralization of self-control measures to what extent people
see failures of self-control as moral issues (Mooijman et al., 2017). Renouncing pleasures in the
present for positive contingencies entails believing that doing something difficult right now will
yield benefits in the future – benefits such as a more respectable, more conscientious, more
virtuous self. Seeing experiences of difficulty as avenues for becoming a better person implies
that one views proper engagement with difficulty as a moral issue. Thus, controlling one’s
contingencies, no matter how hard it may be, seeing this as ethical, and believing that through
the process one will become better, are all linked together.
Character strengths We found a large positive association with character strengths
when we included all 24 character strengths in the scale, and a moderate positive association
when we included only the most relevant 8 character strength items. The belief that overcoming
difficulties can elevate and enhance is associated with virtues such as perseverance, honesty,
zest, love, kindness, and humility. Seeing difficulties as potentially beneficial for the self entails
hope about the future and optimism about the positive transformation of one’s character and self
– without being hopeful and loving towards oneself, one may not be able to find the strength and
determination to engage with or overcome a difficulty. While difficulty-as-sanctifying is tied to
these virtues, it is also distinct from them, implying that it may be a distinct virtue.
53
We demonstrated that difficulty-as-sanctifying is associated with seeing ease as a signal
of possibility, but not with seeing ease as a signal of triviality, implying that difficulty-as-
sanctifying does not necessarily lead to seeing easy pursuits as waste of time. Difficulty-as-
sanctifying exists in the same psychological space as other ease and difficulty mindsets that
focus on expectancy – ease-as-possibility, difficulty-as-impossibility, growth mindset, and grit –
and ease and difficulty mindsets that focus on value – ease-as-triviality and difficulty-as-
importance – but explains processes not fully captured by these mindsets. It specifically focuses
on value to be gained from engagement with difficulty, and not necessarily the value to be
gained from the outcome. It may yield motivation above and beyond these mindsets, in that it
frames engagement with difficulty in and of itself as valuable, and the experience as something
that can strengthen character and elevate spirit. Difficulty-as-sanctifying is also associated with
self-control, seeing self-control as moral, and character virtues, but again, is distinct from these
character traits, explaining variance not captured by them. These constructs may not be able to
explain meaning in life to the degree that difficulty-as-sanctifying can: while the difficulty
mindsets tell one how one should act in the face of difficulty, they are not meaning-making
frameworks, nor explanations for why it can be good to lean into the difficulty. Similarly,
character traits do not provide a reason for staying engaged and resilient, whereas difficulty-as-
sanctifying can provide one with a sense of purpose and meaning through times of hardship.
Difficulty-as-sanctifying should also be able to explain conscientiousness to a degree not
explained by these constructs, as they do not provide a reason for acting conscientiously.
Difficulty-as-sanctifying teaches that acting conscientiously even when it is difficult, can be
valuable.
54
Mediation of Worldview and Positive Outcomes
Our third and final aim was to test whether this mindset can explain the relationship
between worldview (conservatism and religiosity) and positive outcomes (conscientiousness and
meaning in life). Controlling for conservatism, difficulty-as-sanctifying consistently mediated
the relationship between religiosity and conscientiousness, and religiosity and meaning in life.
Controlling for religiosity, difficulty-as-sanctifying mediated the relationship between
conservatism and conscientiousness, but not conservatism and meaning in life. Difficulty-as-
sanctifying also mediated the relationship between self-deceptive enhancement and meaning in
life, supporting the prediction that a difficulty-as-sanctifying mindset may involve some level
self-deception to view oneself in a positive light, leading to a higher experience of meaning in
life.
Difficulty-as-sanctifying mediates religiosity and meaning in life. There is research
documenting that religiously involved and spiritual people experience higher meaning in life
(Chamberlain and Zika, 1992; Hill and Pargament 2003; Steger and Frazier, 2005; Ivtzan et al.,
2013). Organized belief systems allow people to make sense of their experiences through moral
teachings and stories. One of the issues these systems need to address is the reason for suffering.
Many religions around the world are ripe with the teaching that one must endure difficulty and
challenge to become purified of the ego, to become stronger in character, and to feel closer to
God. This belief may function as a meaning making framework for religious and spiritual people
during times of challenge, hence the reason we find that the difficulty-as-sanctifying mindset
explains why religious people report experiencing more meaning in life.
Difficulty-as-sanctifying does not mediate conservatism and meaning in life.
Newman et al. (2018) documented a positive relationship between conservatism and meaning in
life, even when controlling for religiosity. Adjusting for religiosity, we also found a positive
55
relationship between conservatism and meaning in life in Study 7, but not in Studies 5 and 6.
Furthermore, difficulty-as-sanctifying did not mediate the relationship between conservatism and
meaning in life in any of these studies when controlling for religiosity. Conservatives tend to be
more religious than liberals (Feldman & Johnston, 2014) and religiosity is a strong predictor of
meaning in life, hence it may be that in two of our studies, the positive effect of conservatism on
meaning in life was mostly driven by religiosity. Moreover, difficulty-as-sanctifying was not an
adequate explanation for why conservatives experience more meaning in life, when they do.
There may be other reasons, such as a child’s upbringing and community expectations, that can
foster a conservative political orientation as well as more meaning in life (Newman et al., 2018).
We had furthermore hoped to find a relationship between economic system justification as a
component of conservatism and meaning in life, thinking that those who are able to rationalize
economic injustices in the system may more readily derive meaning from life. We found no such
relationship, and this obfuscated the need to look at the relationship between economic system
justification and the difficulty-as-sanctifying mindset.
Difficulty-as-sanctifying mediates worldview and conscientiousness.
Conscientiousness has been linked to longevity (H. S. Friedman et al., 1993; L. R. Martin & H.
S. Friedman, 2000), to beneficial health-related behaviors (Bogg & Roberts, 2004), and to
happiness and emotional intelligence (Chamorro-Premuzic, Bennett, & Furnham, 2007). We
measured conscientiousness with the prediction that endorsement of a difficulty-as-sanctifying
mindset may explain why people who are more conservative and religious report following
through on their goals, keeping promises, and being responsible. Conservative people are higher
in their endorsement of the binding moral values, loyalty, authority, and purity, compared to
liberals (Graham, Haidt, & Nosek, 2009), thus, they may be higher in their endorsement that
56
there is a morally correct way to be and act, and may actually exhibit more of these behaviors.
People who are more involved in organized religion may similarly endorse the morality of
behaving responsibly and honestly. Even when it is difficult to do the right thing, believing that
difficulties are sanctifying may allow conservative and religious individuals to choose to behave
morally and conscientiously. Controlling for religiosity, this mindset mediated the relationship
between conservatism and conscientiousness in both Studies 1 and 4, and controlling for
conservatism, it mediated the relationship between religiosity and conscientiousness in both
studies. People who are socialized into these world perspectives may more readily have a
sanctifying mindset available to them, using this mindset in constructing their behaviors and
displaying conscientiousness. When one cannot find other sources of motivation, telling oneself
that the act of participating in the difficulty, that this act itself could make one a better person,
could provide motivation to stay committed.
Liberals and Non-Religious People
Since these worldviews seem to involve the belief that difficulties and pain are inherently
good for one, it should come as no surprise that people who are more conservative and more
religious endorse this mindset more and that at least religious people use this mindset as a
meaning making framework, adding to their subjective experience of meaning in life. This gives
rise the question, do more liberal and less religious people actually experience less meaning in
life? Or could part of our findings be attributed to the possibility that more conservative and
religious people tend to see themselves in a more positive light and as more morally correct, thus
believing that they are living their lives as they should be? Newman et al. (2018) propose that
part of the reason conservatives report higher meaning in life could be that they tend to view
themselves more positively. We do find a strong relationship between self-deceptive
57
enhancement as a component of political conservatism and meaning in life, mediated by the
difficulty-as-sanctifying mindset. The tendency to view oneself in a positive light may partially
explain why conservative people score higher on meaning in life. However, we find no
relationship between religiosity and self-deceptive enhancement. Thus, we cannot conclude that
a tendency to see oneself positively contributes to religious individuals’ experience of meaning
in life. There are most likely other beliefs and perspectives, as well as experiences intertwined
with religiosity that create a sense of meaning. Further research is needed to investigate what
other lenses liberal and less religious people may be using to extract meaning out of adversity,
and how they motivate themselves in the face of difficulty.
The question also arises of whether liberal and less religious people are actually less
conscientious, or whether the results can be partially explained by biased self-reporting. We did
not assess the relationship between self-deceptive enhancement and conscientiousness, and thus
cannot ascertain the role that biased responding may play.
Limitations
Since we did not experimentally manipulate anything, our mediation models should be
treated with caution. Causality cannot be inferred because our studies were cross-sectional. In
order to see whether bringing to mind a sanctification mindset may lead to different outcomes
such as better performance on a task, we will need to conduct experimental priming studies.
Furthermore, our participants have been mostly WEIRD samples (Western-educated,
industrialized, rich, and democratic; Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010), American, either
undergraduates at the University of Southern California, or adults on Mturk. Studies could be
conducted in other countries to see if patterns of results hold across different cultures and non-
WEIRD samples.
58
Implications and Future Directions
We have shown that a difficulty-as-sanctifying mindset is a belief that exists in people’s
minds, and that this belief is associated with important constructs. Although we have developed
and validated a scale with which to measure one’s endorsement of this belief, there are questions
yet to be answered regarding how this belief functions in the real world.
Priming Studies, Linguistic Markers, and Connection to the Future
Our next step will be to ask, can we prime this mindset, and what downstream
consequences does the priming have for behavior? We will look at whether having a difficulty-
as-sanctifying mindset made salient makes one more likely to engage with or persist through
difficult tasks, and whether this mindset provides motivation above and beyond the difficulty-as-
importance mindset.
Another study will examine linguistic markers of this mindset when individuals talk
about their experiences of difficulty as sanctifying, such as presidential candidacy speeches. We
will also investigate this mindset in naturally occurring environments like tweets.
Investigating Social Aspects of Sanctification
Seeing as this belief is ingrained in universal stories and traditions, it would be useful to
investigate more in depth how people actually experience sanctification through difficulty. One
question that awaits further exploration is whether the final lap of the hero’s journey is crucial
for sanctification to occur, that is, does the person who experienced adversity need to bring their
knowledge to the community, and does the community need to acknowledge that this individual
indeed went through suffering, for the individual to feel sanctified by the experience? It seems
that the last part of the hero’s journey, which entails bringing wisdom back to the community, is
59
necessary for the hero to be recognized by the community as a hero. In this regard, we believe
that the sanctification process may similarly entail a social component – the individual feels
sanctified as a result of having their social group acknowledge and acclaim their conquering of
suffering. Future work will look into how people talk about their own experiences of adversity
and whether they talk about the social component when they talk about sanctification.
Chosen vs. Unchosen Difficulties
Another question to be explored is the nature of the difficulty that leads to sanctification.
Is it the case that people actively choose to do difficult things, or is it that difficulty is thrown
upon people? Religious and cultural notions imply that most difficulties people experience are
thrown upon them, and that the difficulty-as-sanctifying mindset can help people derive
meaning. Yet, this mindset can be applied to both kinds of difficulty. People can become
sanctified through actively choosing to do difficult things that have some moral or practical
value, such as Mahatma Gandhi choosing to fast to garner attention his activism, or they can rise
to the challenge when it is thrust upon them, such as the hero answering the call to adventure in
the hero’s journey. Future work could explore which kind of the two difficulties people mostly
talk about when they talk about sanctification, and whether the theme of sanctification is more
powerful for one or the other.
Conclusion
The difficulty-as-sanctifying mindset, i.e. the belief that experiencing hardship can build
character, strengthen the spirit, and purify the soul, is a universally accessible mindset found in
various religious teachings and cultural artifacts such as the hero’s journey monomyth. People
generally agree with this belief, and we can measure it using a short 4-item scale. The
60
universality and pervasiveness of this mindset implies that this mindset may have yielded an
evolutionary advantage to human societies: the organizing forces of human groups - the
successful leaders - are more often than not deemed as “heroes;” those who have become
“sanctified” in the eyes of the public due to having risen to the challenge, weathered the storm,
and endured or engaged in difficulty, without letting the difficulty overcome their sense of
purpose or heroism. Through trials and tribulations and facing many challenges, their character
and spirit have become strengthened and they have become fit to relay wisdom and guidance to
their communities. Not only does the difficulty-as-sanctifying theme seem to have utilitarian
value for human societies, but also, this mindset helps explain why more religious people may be
experiencing more meaning in life and why religious and conservative people may be more
conscientious, as this mindset helps one make sense out of suffering and motivates one to engage
in moral behaviors, even when it is difficult to do so. Seeing as the difficulty-as-sanctifying
mindset is an accessible and valuable construct, we are looking forward to better understanding
how people experience and talk about themes of sanctification, how our modern heroes employ
this theme in their narratives, the social aspects of sanctification, and whether we can prime this
mindset with downstream consequences for behavior.
61
References
Aelenei, C., Lewis Jr, N. A., & Oyserman, D. (2017). No pain no gain? Social demographic
correlates and identity consequences of interpreting experienced difficulty as importance.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 48, 43-55.
Afhami, R., Mohammadi-Zarghan, S., & Atari, M. (2017). Self-Rating of Religiosity (SRR) in
Iran: Validity, reliability, and associations with the Big Five. Mental Health, Religion &
Culture, 20, 879-887.
Allison, S. T., & Cecilione, J. L. (2015). Paradoxical truths in heroic leadership: Implications for
leadership development and effectiveness. Leadership paradoxes. London: Routledge.
Aloe, A. M., & Becker, B. J. (2012). An effect size for regression predictors in meta-analysis.
Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 37, 278 –297.
Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation.
Becker, E. (2007). The denial of death. Simon and Schuster.
Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques,
and illusions. Annual review of psychology, 64, 417-444.
Bogg, T., & Roberts, B. W. (2004). Conscientiousness and health-related behaviors: a meta-
analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to mortality. Psychological bulletin,
130(6), 887.
62
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010). A basic introduction
to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis
Methods, 1, 97–111.
Burke, S. M., Durand‐Bush, N., & Doell, K. (2010). Exploring feel and motivation with
recreational and elite Mount Everest climbers: An ethnographic study. International
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 8, 373-393.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Feng Kao, C. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for
cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306-307.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the
multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
Campbell, J. (2017). The hero with a thousand faces. Mumbai, India: Yogi Impressions.
Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and
conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave
behind. Political Psychology, 29(6), 807-840.
Chamberlain, K., & Zika, S. (1992). Religiosity, meaning in life, and psychological wellbeing.
In J. F. Schumaker (Ed.), Religion and mental health (pp. 138–148). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Bennett, E., & Furnham, A. (2007). The happy personality: Mediational
role of trait emotional intelligence. Personality and individual differences, 42(8), 1633-
1639.
63
Charnov, E. (1976). Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorum. Theoretical Population
Biology, 9, 129-136.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale
development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309-319.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd. Hilsdale. NJ:
Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Collins, S. (2013). The hunger games. New York, NY: Scholastic.
Compton, W. C., Smith, M. L., Cornish, K. A., & Qualls, D. L. (1996). Factor structure of
mental health measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 406-413.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life.
Basic Books.
Duckworth, A. L., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and Validation of the Short Grit Scale
(Grit–S). Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 166-174.
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: perseverance and
passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1087.
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development.
Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House Digital, Inc.
64
Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2019). Mindsets: A View From Two Eras. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 1745691618804166.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use
of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272-
299.
Feather, N. T. (1967). Valence of outcome and expectation of success in relation to task
difficulty and perceived locus of control. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 7(4p1), 372.
Feather, N. T. (1984). Protestant ethic, conservatism, and values. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 46(5), 1132.
Fisher, O. & Oyserman, D. (2017). Assessing interpretations of experienced ease and difficulty
as motivational constructs. Motivation Science, 3, 133-163.
Frankl, V. (1946). Man’s search for meaning. New York: Beacon Press.
Furnham, A. F., & Bland, C. (1983). The Protestant work ethic and conservatism. Personality
and Individual Differences.
George, L. S., & Park, C. L. (2017). The multidimensional existential meaning scale: A tripartite
approach to measuring meaning in life. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12, 613-627.
Gervais, W. M. (2015). Override the controversy: Analytic thinking predicts endorsement of
evolution. Cognition, 142, 312-321.
65
Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of
moral foundations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 96(5), 1029.
Greenway, A. P., Meagan, P., Turnbull, S., & Milne, L. C. (2007). Religious coping strategies
and spiritual transcendence. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 10, 325–333.
Hahn, D. (Producer), & Allers, R., Minkoff, R. (Directors). (1994). The Lion King [Motion
Picture]. United States: Walt Disney Studios.
Haidt, J. (2006). The Uses of Adversity. The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in
Ancient Wisdom, 135-154. New York: Basic Books.
Hanh, T. N. (1999). The heart of the Buddha's teaching: Transforming suffering into peace, joy
& liberation: The four noble truths, the noble eightfold path, and other basic Buddhist
teachings. Random House.
Hart, C. M., Ritchie, T. D., Hepper, E. G., & Gebauer, J. E. (2015). The balanced inventory of
desirable responding short form (BIDR-16). Sage Open, 5(4), 2158244015621113.
Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2016). Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on
online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods,
48, 400-407.
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
66
Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory
factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 191-
205.
Henningsgaard, J. M., & Arnau, R. C. (2008). Relationships between religiosity, spirituality, and
personality: A multivariate analysis. Personality and individual
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466,
29.
Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research:
Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 66, 393-416.
Hicks, J. A., & King, L. A. (2007). Meaning in life and seeing the big picture: Positive affect and
global focus. Cognition and Emotion, 21, 1577-1584.
Higgins, J. P., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency
in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327, 557–560.
Hill, P. C., & Pargament, K. I. (2003). Advances in the conceptualization and measurement of
religion and spirituality: Implications for physical and mental health research. American
Psychologist, 58, 64–74.
Horowitz, E., Sorensen, N., Yoder, N., & Oyserman, D. (2018). Teachers can do it: Scalable
identity-based motivation intervention in the classroom. Contemporary Educational
Psychology.
67
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.
Infurna, F. J., & Jayawickreme, E. (2019). Fixing the Growth Illusion: New Directions for
Research in Resilience and Posttraumatic Growth. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 0963721419827017.
Ivtzan, I., Chan, C. P., Gardner, H. E., & Prashar, K. (2013). Linking religion and spirituality
with psychological well-being: Examining self-actualisation, meaning in life, and
personal growth initiative. Journal of religion and health, 52(3), 915-929.
James, S. A. (1994). John Henryism and the health of African-Americans. Culture, Medicine and
Psychiatry, 18, 163-182.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and
theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality:
Theory and research (pp. 102-138). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Jost, J. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Simon, L. (1999). Effects of epistemic motivation on
conservatism, intolerance, and other system justifying attitudes. Shared cognition in
organizations: The management of knowledge, 91-116.
68
Jost, J. T., & Thompson, E. P. (2000). Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as
independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among
African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 36, 209-232.
Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-
analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797-807.
Jung, C. G., Dell, W. S., & Baynes, C. F. (1955). Modern man in search of a soul (1st ed.). New
York City, NY: Harcourt Brace.
Kanevsky, L., & Keighley, T. (2003). To produce or not to produce? Understanding boredom
and the honor in underachievement. Roeper Review, 26(1), 20-28.
Khan, Z. H., Watson, P. J., Naqvi, A. Z., Jahan, K., & Chen, Z. J. (2015). Muslim experiential
religiousness in Pakistan: meaning in life, general well-being and gender differences.
Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 18, 482-491.
Kline, P. (2015). A handbook of test construction: Introduction to psychometrics. New York.
NY: Routledge.
Kurtz, G. (Producer), & Lucas, G. (Director). (1977). Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope
[Motion Picture]. United States: Lucasfilm & Twentieth Century Fox.
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world. In The Belief in a just World (pp. 9-30).
Springer, Boston, MA.
69
Lewis Jr, N. A., & Oyserman, D. (2016). Using identity-based motivation to improve the nation's
health without breaking the bank. Behavioral Science & Policy, 2, 24-38.
Litman, L., Robinson, J., & Abberbock, T. (2017). TurkPrime. com: A versatile crowdsourcing
data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 49,
433-442.
Mandela, N. (1993, December 10). Nobel Lecture. Lecture presented at The Nobel Peace Prize in
Oslo City Hall, Norway, Oslo.
McGrath, R. E. (2017). Technical report: The VIA Assessment Suite for Adults: Development
and initial evaluation. Cincinnati, OH: VIA Institute on Character.
Mednick, S. A. (1968). The remote associates test. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 2, 213-
214.
Mooijman, M., Meindl, P., Oyserman, D., Dehghani, M., Monterosso, J., Doris, J. M., &
Graham. J. (2017). Resisting temptation for the good of the group: Binding moral values
and the moralization of self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). The concept of flow. In Flow and the foundations
of positive psychology (pp. 239-263). Springer, Dordrecht.
Nelson, T. O., Narens, L., & Bower, G. (1990). The psychology of learning and
motivation. Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings.
70
Nesse, R. (2009). Explaining depression, neuroscience is not enough: Evolution is essential. In
C. Pariante, R. Nesse, D. Nutt, & L. Wolpert (Eds.), Understanding depression: A
translational approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Novin, S., & Oyserman, D. (2016). Honor as cultural mindset: Activated honor mindset affects
subsequent judgment and attention in mindset-congruent ways. Frontiers in psychology,
7, 1921.
O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components
using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments,
& Computers, 32(3), 396-402.
Oyserman, D. (2007). Social identity and self-regulation. In A. Kruglanski & T. Higgins (Eds.),
Handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 432–453). NY: Guilford Press.
Oyserman, D. (2009). Identity‐based motivation: Implications for action‐readiness, procedural‐
readiness, and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 250-260.
Oyserman, D. (2015). Pathways to success through identity-based motivation. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., & Terry, K. (2006). Possible selves and academic outcomes: How and
when possible selves impel action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91,
188-204.
71
Oyserman, D., Elmore, K., Novin, S., Fisher, O., & Smith, G. C. (2018). Guiding people to
interpret their experienced difficulty as importance highlights their academic possibilities
and improves their academic performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 781.
Oyserman, D., & Fisher, O. (2017). Social stigma and health: An identity-based motivation
perspective. In B. Major, J. F. Dovidio, & B. G. Link (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
discrimination, stigma and health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Oyserman, D., Kemmelmeier, M., & Coon, H. M. (2002). Cultural Psychology, A New Look.
Psychological Bulletin, 128, 110-117.
Oyserman, D., & Lewis, N. A. (2017). Seeing the Destination AND the Path: Using Identity‐
Based Motivation to Understand and Reduce Racial Disparities in Academic
Achievement. Social Issues and Policy Review, 11, 159-194.
Oyserman, D., Smith, G. C., & Elmore, K. (2014). Identity‐based motivation: Implications for
health and health disparities. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 206-225.
Patil, V. H., McPherson, M. Q., & Friesner, D. (2010). The use of exploratory factor analysis in
public health: A note on parallel analysis as a factor retention criterion. American Journal
of Health Promotion, 24, 178-181.
Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated
Approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Pennebaker, J. W. (2004). Writing to heal: A guided journal for recovering from trauma &
emotional upheaval. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications.
72
Pennebaker, J. W. (1997). Writing about emotional experiences as a therapeutic
process. Psychological science, 8(3), 162-166.
Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A., & Baxter, G. P. (2000). 2. assessing metacognition and self-
regulated learning.
P. S. Fry (2000). Religious involvement, spirituality and personal meaning for life: Existential
predictors of psychological wellbeing in community-residing and institutional care elders,
Aging & Mental Health, 4:4, 375-387.
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation
for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
Rashi, & Chavel, C. B. (1995). Perushe Rashi ʻal ha-Torah: ʻal-pi defus rishon, ketav-yad
Oksford u-mahadurat Berliner: ʻim mavo, shinuye nusḥ aʼot, tsiyune meḳ orot, maḳ bilot,
heʻarot u-veʼurim. Yerushalayim: Mosad ha-Rav Ḳ uḳ .
Relman, Eliza. (2018). As a POW in Vietnam, John McCain refused release until his fellow
prisoners were freed, making him a hero in the eyes of many [Donald Trump Quote].
Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-refused-early-release-as-a-
pow-in-vietnam-2018-8
Roberts, B. W., Jackson, J. J., Fayard, J. V., Edmonds, G., & Meints, J. (2009).
Conscientiousness. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual
differences in social behavior (pp. 369-381). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology.
73
Rowling, J. K. (2014). Harry Potter and the philosophers stone. London: Bloomsbury.
Rū mī , J. A., & Barks, C. (2004). The essential Rumi. New York: HarperCollins.
Rumi, J. A., & Mojaddedi, J. A. (2008). The Masnavi. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (2003). Flourishing under fire: Resilience as a prototype of challenged
thriving. In C. L. M. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the
life well-lived (pp. 15-36). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Smith, G. C. & Oyserman, D. (2015) Just not worth my time? Experienced difficulty and time
investment. Social Cognition, 33, 85-103.
Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). (2009). Oxford handbook of positive psychology. Oxford
library of psychology.
Sterne, J. A. C., Sutton, A. J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Terrin, N., Jones, D. R., Lau, J.,... Higgins, J. P.
T. (2011). Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in
meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal, 343, d4002.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics, 5th ed. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High Self-Control Predicts Good
Adjustment, Less Pathology, Better Grades, and Interpersonal Success. Journal of
Personality, 72, 271-324.
74
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International journal of
medical education, 2, 53.
Tennen, H., & Affleck, G. (1998). Personality and transformation in the face of adversity. In R.
G. Tedeschi, C. L. Park, & L. G. Calhoun (Eds.), The LEA series in personality and
clinical psychology. Posttraumatic growth: Positive changes in the aftermath of
crisis (pp. 65-98). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Trenholm, P., Trent, J., & Compton, W. C. (1998). Negative religious conflict as a predictor of
panic disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54, 59–65.
Tolkien, J. R. (1973). The fellowship of the ring /by J.R.R. Tolkien. New York NY: Ballantine
Books.
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2011). The Cognitive Reflection Test as a
predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks. Memory & Cognition, 39, 1275.
Tov, W., & Lee, H. W. (2016). A closer look at the hedonics of everyday meaning and
satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 585-609.
Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of
Statistical Software, 36, 1– 48.
Vohs, K. D., Aaker, J. L., & Catapano, R. (2019). It's Not Going to Be That Fun: Negative
Experiences Can Add Meaning to Life. Current Opinion in Psychology. 26, 11-14.
75
Williams, D. R., & Sternthal, M. J. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: evidence and
research directions. Medical Journal of Australia, 186, S47–S50.
Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2005). Affective forecasting: Knowing what to want. Current
directions in psychological science, 14(3), 131-134.
Wood, D., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2007). Normality evaluations and their relation to
personality traits and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 861-
879.
Yalçın, İ., & Malkoç, A. (2015). The relationship between meaning in life and subjective well-
being: Forgiveness and hope as mediators. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 915-929.
Zika, S., & Chamberlain, K. (1987). Relation of hassles and personality to subjective well-being.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 155-162.
Ziskin, L. & Bryce, I. (Producers), & Raimi, S. (Director). (2002). Spider Man [Motion Picture].
United States: Marvel Enterprises.
(1999). Senator John McCain [Time Magazine Cover from Dec. 13, 1999]. Retrieved
from http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19991213,00.html.
76
Appendix
Table 12. Participants’ race-ethnicity information
aIn Studies 1, 5, and 7, percentages do not add to 100 because participants had the option of reporting multiple race-ethnicities
and often did, so we counted each race-ethnicity as often as it occurred. Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding, or
because participants did not provide race-ethnicity information.
% Race-
Ethnicity
(n)a
Study 1 (N1
= 373)
Study 2 (N2
= 371)
Study 3 (N3
= 476)
Study 4 (N4
= 385)
Study 5 (N5
= 364)
Study 6 (N6
= 189)
Study 7
(N7 = 368)
European
American/
Caucasian
77 (N = 287) 71 (N = 263) 46 (N = 220) 71 (N = 274) 38 (N = 151) 70 (N = 133)
34 (N =
124)
Asian
American
8 (N = 28) 8 (N = 28) 38 (N = 182) 7 (N = 26) 37 (N = 146) 9 (N = 17)
32 (N =
119)
American
Other
Racial-
ethnic
Heritage
2 (N = 6) 2 (N = 7) 13 (N = 63) 0.5 (N = 2) 10 (N = 40) 3 (N = 5)
19 (N =
70)
Hispanic
American/
Latino
6 (N = 23) 7 (N = 26) 13 (N = 64) 8 (N = 32) 12 (N = 48) 6 (N = 12)
13 (N =
47)
African
American
8 (N = 28) 12 (N = 46) 6 (N = 30) 11 (N = 43) 3 (N = 12) 11 (N = 20) 2 (N = 8)
77
Table 13. Participants’ political ideology
Table 14. Participants’ political affiliation
*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding, and due to missing data.
% Political
ideologyd
Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Study 4 Study 5 Study 6 Study 7
Liberals
(ratings 1-3)
50 (N =
188)
57 (N =
211)
53 (N =
250)
49 (N =
190)
60 (N =
214)
48 (N = 90) 67 (N = 246)
Conservative
s (ratings 5-7)
24 (N = 91) 22 (N = 80) 18 (N = 85)
28 (N =
109)
20 (N = 73) 33 (N = 62) 17 (N = 61)
Middles
(rating of 4)
21 (N = 77) 21 (N = 79) 15 (N = 70) 22 (N = 85) 17 (N = 62) 20 (N = 37) 17 (N = 61)
% Political
Partye
Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Study 4 Study 5 Study 6 Study 7
Democrat 53 (N = 187) 58 (N = 215) -- 51 (N = 195) 56 (N = 202) 50 (N = 94) --
Republican 26 (N = 95) 19 (N = 72) -- 29 (N = 113) 16 (N = 59) 30 (N = 57) --
Other 21 (N = 74) 22 (N = 83) -- 20 (N = 77) 24 (N = 87) 20 (N = 38) --
78
Table 15. Participants’ religiosity ratings
Table 16. Participants’ religious affiliation
% Religiosity Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Study 4 Study 5 Study 6 Study 7
% Not religious
(ratings 1-3)
67 (N =
250)
73 (N =
273) 80 (N = 382) 65 (N = 252) 65 (N = 238)
61 (N =
115)
60 (N =
220)
% Religious
(ratings 4-6)
28 (N =
106) 26 (N = 97) 20 (N = 94) 35 (N = 133) 31 (N = 111)
39 (N =
74)
40 (N =
148)
% Reported Religious
affiliation
Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Study 4 Study 5 Study 6 Study 7
Christianity
44 (N =
156)
41 (N =
154)
--
50 (N =
194)
40 (N =
144)
52 (N = 98) --
Agnostic 23 (N = 82) 22 (N = 83) - 19 (N = 73) 17 (N = 61) 19 (N = 36) --
Atheist 22 (N = 80) 24 (N = 90) - 20 (N = 77 12 (N = 42)
19 ( N =
36)
--
Other or no response 9 (N = 36) 7 (N = 25) - 6 (N = 23) 9 (N = 34) 4 (N = 8) --
Buddhism 2 (N = 6) 2 (N = 9) - 0.3 (N = 1) 5 (N = 19) 3 (N = 5) --
Judaism 1 (N = 5) 1 (N = 5) - 1 (N = 4) 6 (N = 22) 1 (N = 2) --
Islam 1 (N = 4) 1 (N = 3) - 2 (N = 7) 3 (N = 11) 0 --
Hinduism 1 (N = 4) 0 (N = 1) - 2 (N = 6) 3 (N = 12) 2 (N = 4) --
79
Table 17. Mturk participants’ education information
Study 1 Study 2 Study 4 Study 6
Mean Education (SD) 4.71 (1.74) 4.57 (1.78) 4.81 (1.68) 4.93 (1.67)
% Education Level
Less than high school 0 (N = 1) 1 (N = 5) 0.3 (N = 1) 0
High school 13 (N = 50) 12 (N = 46) 11 (N = 41) 8 (N = 15)
Some college 22 (N = 82) 27 (N = 100) 22 (N = 86) 25 (N = 48)
Vocational/technical
degree
4 (N = 15) 3 (N = 11) 4 (N = 16) 0.5 (N =1)
Associate's degree 14 (N = 52) 12 (N = 46) 14 (N = 52) 13 (N = 24)
Bachelor's degree 35 (N = 129) 34 (N = 128) 37 (N = 141) 41 (N = 78)
Graduate degree 12 (N = 44) 7 (N = 25) 12 (N = 48) 12 (N = 23)
80
Table 18. Mturk Participants’ income information
1 2 4 6
Mean Income (SD) 4.60 (2.64) 4.55 (2.75) 4.66 (2.72) 4.82 (2.84)
% Incomeg
Less than $10,000 13 (N = 48) 13 (N = 49) 11 (N = 43) 13 (N = 25)
$10,000 to $19,999 10 (N = 36) 14 (N = 52) 13 (N = 50) 9 (N = 16)
$20,000 to $29,999 17 (N = 64) 13 (N = 47) 14 (N = 55) 14 (N = 26)
$30,000 to $39,999 13 (N = 48) 16 (N = 60) 16 (N = 60) 17 (N = 33)
$40,000 to $49,999 16 (N = 60) 13 (N = 48) 12 (N = 46) 12 (N = 23)
$50,000 to $59,999 10 (N = 39) 9 (N = 33) 13 (N = 49) 12 (N = 22)
$60,000 to $69,999 6 (N = 22) 5 (N = 17) 7 (N = 25) 5 (N = 10)
$70,000 to $79,999 6 (N = 21) 8 (N = 28) 5 (N = 18) 5 (N = 9)
$80,000 to $89,999 3 (N = 11) 3 (N = 10) 2 (N = 9) 4 (N = 7)
$90,000 to $99,999 2 (N = 9) 2 (N = 7) 2 (N = 7) 3 (N = 6)
Greater than
$100,000
4 (N = 15) 5 (N = 19) 6 (N = 23)
6 (N = 12)
81
Table 19. Undergraduate participants’ year in school
Meta Analyses
Meta-analyses were conducted using R programming language v.3.4.2 (R Core Team,
2017) using the metafor statistical package (Viechtbauer, 2010). We tested models for the
associations between the DASSA and 4 interpretations of ease and difficulty. We ran random-
effects models using restricted maximum likelihood estimation to allow for generalizability
beyond the particular samples collected in the current research (Aloe & Becker, 2012;
Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2010).
In addition to the average meta-analytic effect sizes reported in the r metric, we report
two measures of heterogeneity which assess how consistent effects are across k studies. We
report the tau-squared values of heterogeneity among the effect sizes alongside their Q-tests (and
the associated p-values). Additionally, considering the fact that tau-squared can sometimes be
inaccurate for particularly small or large samples, we report the I2 heterogeneity index. This
heterogeneity index has higher consistency across samples and can be reliably compared across
meta-analyses (Higgins, Thompson, Deeks, & Altman, 2003). Of note, I2 values can range from
Year in school Study 3 Study 5 Study 7
Freshman 25 (N = 122) 9 (N = 33) 10 (N = 38)
Sophomore 40 (N = 188) 28 (N = 102) 29 (N = 106)
Junior 20 (N = 93) 28 (N = 102) 27 (N = 100)
Senior or higher 15 (N = 73) 30 (N = 110) 34 (N = 123)
82
0% to 100%, with values of 25%, 50%, and 75%, corresponding to low, moderate, and high
levels of heterogeneity, respectively. Based on Sterne and colleagues (2011), we also examine
effect size asymmetries using funnel plots for all estimates derived from k studies. Specifically,
effects (with a sufficient number of samples) can be plotted based on effect size and sample size
(or standard error), with unbiased estimates representing a funnel (i.e., the high-power studies
will converge on an accurate effect size at the tip of the funnel and low powered studies will
show high variability of effect sizes toward the bottom of the funnel). Results can be seen in
Table 19 and Figures 6-9 below.
Table 20. Results of the Meta-Analyses for Correlations between SANE-DS and Lay Theories of
Ease and Difficulty
Target Variable K N r(SE) 95% CI τ2 (SE) Q I2
Difficulty as
Importance
7 2,774 .58(.06) [.45,.71] .027(.017) 72.91** 91.15%
Difficulty as
Impossibility
7 2,774 -.14(.04) [-.21, -.06] .008(.006) 24.45** 76.47%
Ease as Triviality 7 2,774 .13(.06) [.02, .24] .019(.012) 43.31** 87.85%
Ease as
Possibility
7 2,774 .24(.03) [.18, .30] .004(.004) 15.09* 58.46%
*p < .05 **p < .01
83
Figure 6. Forest plot for meta-analysis of difficulty-as-importance.
Figure 7. Forest plot for meta analysis of difficulty-as-impossibility
84
Figure 8. Forest plot for meta analysis of ease-as-triviality
Figure 9. Forest plot for meta analysis of ease-as-possibility
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Often through no fault or choice of their own making, people’s everyday lives entail difficulty, pain, and suffering. Though not chosen, these experiences can be meaningful. Both religions and cultures suggest that pain and suffering “sanctify,” purify one of the sins of the ego, build character, and ultimately make one a better person. Yet social scientists know little about this difficulty-as-sanctifying mindset as a motivational construct. To address this gap, we build on Identity-Based Motivation theory to develop and initially validate a brief difficulty-as-sanctifying scale (N=744), We document that difficulty-as-sanctifying is distinct from other ease and difficulty mindsets (e.g., difficulty-as-importance, difficulty-as-impossibility, grit, growth mindset) and measures of character traits (self-control, moralization of self-control, character strengths). Religious and politically conservative people are more likely to endorse difficulty-as-sanctifying. Mediation analyses suggest that difficulty-as-sanctifying explains why religious people experience more meaning in life and why religious and conservative people are more conscientious.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The antecedents and consequences of believing that difficulties are character-building
PDF
Can I make the time or is time running out? That depends in part on how I think about difficulty
PDF
“What difficulty means for me”: predictors and consequences of difficulty mindsets
PDF
People can change when you want them to: changes in identity-based motivation affect student and teacher Pathways experience
PDF
A roadmap for changing student roadmaps: designing interventions that use future “me” to change academic outcomes
PDF
Culture's consequences: a situated account
PDF
Classrooms are game settings: learning through and with play
PDF
Difficulty-as-importance and difficulty-as-impossibility: unpacking the context-sensitivity and consequences of identity-based inferences from difficulty
PDF
Only half of what I’ll tell you is true: how experimental procedures lead to an underestimation of the truth effect
PDF
Intuitions of beauty and truth: what is easy on the mind is beautiful and true
PDF
When photos backfire: truthiness and falsiness effects in comparative judgements
PDF
Performance and attention novelty slows hedonic adaptation during habit formation
PDF
Selflessness takes time: altruistic (but not cooperative) prosocial behavior increases with decision time
PDF
Learning repetition rules and non-adjacent dependencies from human actions in nine-month-old infants
PDF
Novelty versus familiarity: divergent effects of low predictability and low personal influence
PDF
Building the digital dreamscape: virtual worlds, the subconscious mind and our addiction to escapism
PDF
A neuropsychological exploration of low-SES adolescents’ life goals and their motives
PDF
Musical self-efficacy of graduate students in South Korea and the United States
PDF
Selling virtue: how human rights NGOs and their donors work together to create a better world ... for themselves
PDF
The Samuel H. Kress Collection: a cultural legacy of Italian Renaissance art in midcentury America
Asset Metadata
Creator
Kiper, Gülnaz
(author)
Core Title
Difficulty-as-sanctifying: when difficulties build character, purify the self, and elevate the soul
School
College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
Degree
Master of Arts
Degree Program
Psychology
Publication Date
04/20/2020
Defense Date
02/05/2020
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
conscientiousness,difficulty mindsets,expectancy value theories,identity-based motivation,meaning in life,Motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,sanctification,virtues
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Oyserman, Daphna (
committee chair
), Dehghani, Morteza (
committee member
), Schwarz, Norbert (
committee member
)
Creator Email
gkiper@ucla.edu,gkiper@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-281864
Unique identifier
UC11673730
Identifier
etd-KiperGlnaz-8270.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-281864 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-KiperGlnaz-8270.pdf
Dmrecord
281864
Document Type
Thesis
Rights
Kiper, Gülnaz; Kiper, Gulnaz
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
conscientiousness
difficulty mindsets
expectancy value theories
identity-based motivation
meaning in life
sanctification
virtues