An underexplored pathway to life satisfaction: The development and validation of the synchronicity awareness and meaning-detecting scale

Introduction: Synchronicity refers to the psychological process of meaningful coincidences. The present study aimed to build and expand upon a model of synchronicity awareness and meaning-detecting (REM)—receptiveness (R) as a precondition for an exceptional encounter (E) triggering emotions and meaning-detecting (M)—by assessing the prevalence of the phenomenon and its associations with well-being.

Methods and Results: Results from two studies reported here employing adult community samples (N = 198 and N = 440) demonstrate coherent, replicable structure and good internal reliability for a 35-item, two-factor Synchronicity Awareness and Meaning-Detecting (SAMD) Scale. Synchronicity awareness (SA) and meaning-detecting (MD) scores were significantly associated with some of the Big-5 personality dimensions and tolerance for ambiguity, as well as with search for and presence of meaning. Furthermore, process mediation models showed: (a) synchronicity awareness mediated the relationship between search for meaning and meaning-detecting, and (b) optimism and presence of meaning in life partly mediated the relationship between meaning-detecting and life satisfaction.

Discussion: The findings suggest the importance of synchronicity experiences and hold important conceptual and practical implications for understanding processes of meaning making from unexpected events and their potential contribution to individuals’ well-being.

Introduction

Synchronicity has been defined by Jung (1969) as unpredictable occurrences of meaningful coincidence. Synchronicity refers to unusual and meaningful coincidences linking the internal and external worlds of the individual. In essence, synchronicity experiences reflect “the coincidence of events in space and time as meaning something more than mere chance” (Jung, 1950/1997, p. 25). In the decades since Jung introduced the concept of synchronicity, interest in the topic has significantly grown (Main, 2011; Hocoy, 2012; Sacco, 2019). Clinical case studies have demonstrated that an acknowledgment of synchronicity is beneficial in therapeutic settings (Connolly, 2015; Roxburgh et al., 2015), as well as in understanding career pathways and processes (e.g., Guindon and Hanna, 2002). Yet, systematic empirical findings regarding the prevalence of this phenomenon and its association with meaning in life and well-being among nonclinical populations remain underexplored. Moreover, assessment tools suggested to explore this phenomenon have failed to reflect the full range of the experience. In line with this, the purpose of the present study was twofold: (1) to extend previous attempts by developing a new scale to assess individual differences in the capability to be aware and make sense of synchronicity experiences; and (2) to explore potential links between the awareness and meaning-detecting of synchronicity experiences, meaning, and well-being.

Following the Jungian view, synchronicity reflects a holistic experience, in which an external experience has meaning when it is connected to a person’s inner world (Jung, 1950/1997). Such interconnectedness between the inner and external experience relies on subjective interpretation of events. Indeed, research thus far indicates a great variance in the reported occurrence of such events. An estimated 22 to 84% of the population reported experiencing synchronicity at least once (Henry, 1993; Fach et al., 2013; Roxburgh et al., 2015; Sacco, 2019)].

Preliminary quantitative reports pointed out individual differences in the experience of synchronicity and coincidence (Bressan, 2002; Coleman et al., 2009; Fach et al., 2013). Along these lines, Bressan (2002) suggested that awareness of meaningful coincidence can be considered a trait-like characteristic. Unger et al. (2021) also found that “people show marked and temporally stable individual differences concerning the frequency of meaningful coincidences perception in everyday life” (p. 1). More specifically, the tendency to detect such coincidence was found to be related to some of the Big Five personality traits, referential thinking, religious commitment, and faith in intuition (Coleman et al., 2009), or belief in the paranormal (Bressan, 2002).

In sum, a few studies suggest that individuals appear to differ in their tendency to notice coincident events (e.g., Roesler, 2018) as well as in their inclination to make sense of them (e.g., Coleman et al., 2009). However, to our knowledge, none of the few studies to date on the topic have clearly differentiated between the awareness of such events and the process of making sense of them. Moreover, little is known about the relationship between these constructs and other personality characteristics or with life satisfaction.

Assessment of synchronicity experiences

Increased attention to the phenomenon of synchronicity experiences led to various attempts to estimate their prevalence (e.g., Henry, 1993; Fach et al., 2013). Despite their contribution to the development of better understanding of the frequency of such experiences, these attempts were limited in four ways. First, previous studies mostly focused on specific populations, such as reports on chance events in careers (Guindon and Hanna, 2002; Bright et al., 2005; Krumboltz et al., 2013), in the context of psychotherapy and clinical settings (Marlo and Kline, 1998; Connolly, 2015; Roesler, 2018), or self-selected participants interested in “weird coincidences” (Coleman et al., 2009). Second, previous studies mostly used qualitative methodologies and small samples to explore the nature of the phenomenon (e.g., Hanson and Klimo, 1998; Connolly, 2015; Roxburgh et al., 2015; Russo-Netzer and Icekson, 2020). Third, some explorations relied on reports that only addressed the phenomenon as a part of other experiences. For example, Fach et al. (2013) explored meaningful coincidences as part of their study of exceptional experiences, along with other types such as out-of-body experiences. Fourth, the few studies that explored individual differences in the tendency to report synchronicity experiences paid less attention to the possible links between this phenomenon and well-being (e.g., Bressan, 2002; Coleman et al., 2009; Fach et al., 2013; Roesler, 2018). Together, these limitations suggest that there is a need for more nuanced and sensitive measures of synchronicity experiences in the general population. Moreover, exploring the potential mechanisms underlying this phenomenon – awareness of the experience and the meaning-detection of it – and the relationships of these components to well-being may enable a more holistic understanding of the construct.

Following Jung (1969) conceptualizations of synchronicity experiences and a phenomenological analysis of in-depth interviews, a model was recently offered to characterize the experience of synchronicity and meaningful coincidences (Russo-Netzer and Icekson, 2020). The model (REM) refers to three major building blocks: receptiveness (R), or increased attention and openness to both a person’s internal and external world, which is viewed as a precondition for an exceptional encounter (E), a sudden unexpected event that corresponds with a person’s inner state of mind, triggering memorable and distinctive emotions, and meaning-detecting (M), a conscious process of connecting the event to a person’s life narrative. The first aim of the present study was to build on this model and to validate a tool to assess individual differences in the experience of synchronicity, while measuring both aspects of the experience (i.e., awareness and meaning-detecting).

Synchronicity experiences have been reported as emerging more frequently around periods of emotional intensity or major life transitions, such as births, deaths, and marriage (Coleman et al., 2009). Moreover, synchronicity experiences have been viewed as a possible vehicle for personal transformation (Jung, 1969; Main, 2011), as well as for individuals’ growth (e.g., Russo-Netzer and Icekson, 2020). However, the understanding of the mechanisms underlying the relationship between these experiences and well-being is still limited. This is due to the rather narrow and anecdotal nature of case studies in therapeutic and career development settings that informed previous attempts (Guindon and Hanna, 2002; Connolly, 2015; Roxburgh et al., 2015). Therefore, this study also aims to explore potential links between these aspects of synchronicity experiences, meaning, and well-being.

Synchronicity, meaning, and life satisfaction

Life satisfaction (LS) is often conceived as a general, overarching well-being indicator (e.g., Lounsbury et al., 2005), evaluating individuals’ sense of well-being, measuring their overall satisfaction with life (Diener, 1984). Psychological study of the human experience of LS has received much attention in recent decades (Emerson et al., 2017), suggesting various beneficial outcomes (e.g., Diener et al., 2017; Lombardo et al., 2018). Yet, more research is needed to uncover the psychological mechanisms that contribute to higher LS (Diener et al., 2017).

One potential mechanism, according to existential and humanistic theories, is the search by individuals for meaning in their lives. The process of searching for meaning in life is considered by some theorists as healthy and positive (Frankl, 1963). For example, search for meaning was found to be positively related to LS in some studies (e.g., Steger et al., 2008; Datu, 2015; Russo-Netzer, 2019; Abu-Raiya et al., 2021), as well as with positive outcomes such as open-mindedness, ambition, and absorption (Steger et al., 2006, 2008).

Yet, other studies have found that searching for meaning is associated with less LS (e.g., Park, 2010) and greater anxiety, depression, and rumination (e.g., Steger et al., 2008; Yek et al., 2017). Thus, the relationship between search for meaning and well-being indicators appears to present a complex and multifaceted picture, suggesting that the interplay between these constructs may require further unpacking (cf. Russo-Netzer, 2019). The present study aimed at extending knowledge on the relationship between search for meaning and LS, pointing to the role of synchronicity awareness and meaning-detecting as possible mediators (see Figure 1).

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. The proposed theoretical model.

Studies suggest that the search for meaning may function as a state of mind or a schema that allows individuals to identify information related to meaning in life (Steger et al., 2011). Since James (1890/1950) assertion that “my experience is what I agree to attend to” (p. 402), it has long been acknowledged that our attentional choices may shape our experience (e.g., Driver, 2001). For example, the human need to experience life as coherent motivates individuals to prefer clarity and structure over ambiguity and uncertainty (e.g., Heine et al., 2006). Along this line, higher rates of meaning in life were reported following an exposure to coherent stimuli compared to random ones (Heintzelman et al., 2013). Moreover, when confronted with a threat to their sense of personal control, individuals tend to detect patterns in arbitrary displays (e.g., Whitson and Galinsky, 2008). It thus can be suggested that when the search for meaning is expressed by actively being aware of synchronistic experiences and making sense of them, the search for meaning may be expected to be associated with benevolent outcomes. In a recent qualitative study, synchronicity experiences were reported as emerging from an active “searching” mindset that the participants adopted: “Although coincidences are unpredictable, participants described the state of attentiveness to such moments as paradoxically inviting such experiences, as turning them from invisible to apparent in life” (Russo-Netzer and Icekson, 2020, p. 5).

Experiences of unpredictable happenings may temporarily shake and challenge individuals’ sense of certainty, predictability, and control in life (Heine et al., 2006; Proulx and Heine, 2008). However, building on the meaning-as-information approach (Heintzelman and King, 2014) and the idea that identifying consistent connections in the environment is a key for survival (Geary, 2004), when individuals are capable of making sense of such happenings, it may open up opportunities for greater sense of meaning in life and a positive perspective on the future.

Presence of meaning mediates between synchronicity meaning-detection and life satisfaction

It has long been acknowledged that experiencing meaning in life contributes to the perception of satisfaction with one’s life as an activating mechanism to optimal living. Extensive research has provided evidence that the presence of meaning is beneficial to a host of well-being indicators (e.g., Park, 2010; Steger, 2012; Czekierda et al., 2017). Moreover, recent studies suggest that meaning-cultivating activities (i.e., prioritizing meaning on a daily basis) are associated with a greater sense of meaning in life, which in turn is positively related to various well-being indicators, such as LS (Russo-Netzer, 2019; Russo-Netzer and Shoshani, 2020). Thus, when individuals experience unpredictable happenings as coherent and meaningful, it may be associated with greater sense of meaning in life, which in turn may contribute to increased LS.

Optimism mediates between synchronicity meaning-detection and life satisfaction

Optimism can be defined as a tendency to hold generalized positive expectancies even in the face of adversity (Carver and Scheier, 1994). According to this view, individuals with higher optimism expect good things to happen in the future and therefore actively strive to achieve their goals. Following expectancy-incentive models, desired goals direct and motivate our behavior. If an individual has an internal, purposeful goal, which is believed to be obtainable, the result is engagement of effort and higher satisfaction with life (Carver and Scheier, 2014).

Indeed, more than three decades of research have demonstrated the existence of strong positive ties between optimism and LS, suggesting that the inclination to expect good things in the future is highly associated with individuals reporting a satisfying life (e.g., Carver and Scheier, 1994; Busseri, 2013; Zhang et al., 2014). For example, in a meta-analysis conducted across 50 studies with 19,831 participants, Alarcon et al., 2013 found an aggregate effect of 0.43 between optimism and LS. Over and above the ample number of correlational studies, longitudinal studies also suggest that optimism predicts LS over time (e.g., Daukantaitė and Zukauskiene, 2012; Layous et al., 2013).

Moving one step further, according to the self-concordance model, self-concordant goals are ones that represent people’s authentic interests and values (e.g., Sheldon and Elliot, 1999). Greater self-concordance is experienced when individuals engage in meaning-making activities, such as setting meaningful goals. Hence, greater engagement in meaningful activities leads to greater positive expectancies regarding the future (i.e., optimism), which in turn enhances well-being. Indeed, several previous studies documented mediational effects of optimism in the relationships between meaning-oriented constructs and activities and well-being (Ho et al., 2010; Krok and Telka, 2019). In the same vein, when individuals experience unpredictable happenings as coherent and meaningful, it may be associated with positive expectations toward the future (i.e., optimism), which in turn may contribute to increased LS.

Taken together, our model suggests that individuals who search for meaning are more prone to be aware of synchronicity experiences and notice them and that detecting meaning in synchronicity experiences enhances both optimism and presence of meaning, which eventually are positively associated with higher LS (see Figure 1).

Overview of the present studies

We assume that people differ in their tendency to detect synchronicity experiences and make sense of them. However, no valid assessment tool has yet to be offered and validated for this purpose. The development of such an assessment tool is necessary to better understand the prevalence of the phenomenon in various populations, as well as to explore its potential relationships with other psychological constructs. Thus, the present studies make three major contributions.

First, they extend previous attempts to explore the scope and prevalence of the phenomenon of synchronicity awareness among nonclinical populations (e.g., Bright et al., 2005; Fach et al., 2013). Second, they offer a new and valid measure for the awareness and meaning-detection of synchronicity experiences to explore potential individual differences that may delineate directions for future research and practice. Third, they contribute to better understanding of the paths that may cultivate well-being.

The two studies were conducted to explore the factorial structure and validity of the Synchronicity Awareness and Meaning-Detecting (SAMD) Scale, comprised of two subscales. Study 1 involved three main steps. Step 1 tested and refined a preliminary items pool of the scale. Step 2 assessed its structural validity and internal reliability. Step 3 assessed its discriminate and convergent validity, comparing it with related constructs of individual differences. It was predicted that both synchronicity awareness and meaning-detecting would be positively related to openness to experience and tolerance for ambiguity, as well as with the search for and presence of meaning in life. Study 2 further validated the internal structure of the scale in an independent and larger sample. In addition, it examined the association between this scale and well-being variables. More specifically, search for meaning was expected to be positively associated with synchronicity awareness (a), which leads to higher synchronicity meaning-detecting (b). Higher tendency to detect meaning in synchronicity experiences enhances both presence of meaning in life (c) and a sense of optimism (d), and each contributes to enhanced life satisfaction (e and f). See Figure 1 for more details.

Materials and methods: Study 1

The purpose of Study 1 was to develop and test a synchronicity measure. Its factor structure and internal consistency were examined, as well as its associations with conceptually related individual differences constructs.

Participants

Appropriate sample size for the exploratory factor analyses was determined using the relatively strict ratio of 10:1 subject to item (Costello and Osborne, 2005; Carpenter, 2018). The overall sample consisted of two independent subsamples: the first was a convenient sample and the second a representative sample of the Israeli Jewish population. The integrated sample consisted of 410 Israeli adults with a mean age of 39.22 years (SD = 15.67). Approximately 60% of the sample (n = 244) were women, 35.4% had a BA degree, and 18.8% had an MA degree or higher. As for marital status, 35.4% were single, 55.6% were married, and 9% were divorced or widowed. Most of the participants were secular (53.9%) and the rest reported various levels of religiosity. Supplementary Table S1 presents the demographics of each of the samples.

Procedure

Participants were recruited via two main vehicles. The first was an online panel. The study utilized an Israeli paid survey platform acknowledged by the Israeli Bureau of Statistics as representing the Israeli population. The panel consists of more than 50,000 people over the age of 18 who signed up to participate in paid internet surveys. Recently, online panels have become a common way to target and reach respondents in social science research (Steelman et al., 2014; Toder-Alon et al., 2018). Participants from the panel received compensation of $5 for filling in the questionnaire. The second vehicle was various mailing lists and websites targeting the general public as well as university students. These participants received no compensation for participating in the study.

All participants completed a series of online questionnaires. Prior to filling out the questionnaires, all participants provided a signed informed consent, which specified the purpose of the research, its procedures, and the voluntary nature of participation. Participants were guaranteed anonymity, and no disclosure of personal details was required. The study was approved by the IRB in the first author’s university.

Measures

Synchronicity awareness and meaning-detecting

This scale was developed specifically for the present study in order to explore the extent to which individuals are aware of the occurrence of synchronicity events in their lives and make sense of them. In order to ensure content validity, the preliminary item pool was developed based on an extensive review of existing conceptual models and surveys. Specifically, the REM (receptiveness, emotion-evoking experiences, and meaning-detecting) model, emerging from the Russo-Netzer and Icekson (2020) qualitative-phenomenological study, informed the creation of the scale. First, we employed a “bottom-up” approach using a content analysis of former in-depth interviews of synchronicity experiences (Russo-Netzer and Icekson, 2020), from which corresponding items were developed. After the preliminary generation of items, and as suggested by Carpenter (2018), we asked for experts’ feedback. Two clinical psychologists who were also experienced researchers (PhDs) provided feedback regarding item quality and how well each item reflected the suggested subscale.

The SAMD scale is comprised of two subscales: (a) synchronicity awareness (SA), and (b) synchronicity meaning-detecting (MD). The SA subscale referred to awareness of the occurrence of synchronicity events. It involved 10 items using a 6-point scale (0 = never, 1 = once, 2 = twice or more, 3 = rarely, 4 = often, 5 = all the time) and included the following instructions: “In our daily lives, surprising and unlikely events may occur. Below are examples of such possible occurrences. For each example try to remember whether you experienced it and indicate the degree of frequency in your life” (e.g., “I thought about a person and he\she contacted me unexpectedly shortly afterwards”).

The MD subscale referred to the meaning detected in the synchronicity events or experiences. It involved 22 items using a 7-point scale (1 = not at all to 7 = to a high degree) and included the following instructions: “Read carefully each of the following items and indicate the degree to which each of these items best describes you” (e.g., “I believe that listening to internal and external occurrences enables new discoveries”). Since the first dimension referred to the frequency of specific events and the second dimension to the subjective perception of such events, a different response format (i.e., 6- and 7-point scales) and different number of items were adopted for each dimension.

The measure was translated into English using back-translation independently by both the authors and two native English speakers who are bilingual in Hebrew and English (see Table 1 for items and psychometric information). The translation was done in accordance with guidelines from the International Test Commission (ITC; Hernández et al., 2020).

TABLE 1

Table 1. Exploratory structural equations modeling: factor loadings of the SAMD scale items.

Meaning in life

This scale was used to assess the search for and presence of meaning in the individual’s life, with “search for” and “presence of” representing two subscales of the overall measure (Steger et al., 2006). Both subscales were rated using a 1 (absolutely untrue) to 7 (absolutely true) Likert scale. The present study used the validated Hebrew version of this questionnaire (Littman-Ovadia and Steger, 2010). The search subscale is comprised of five items (MLQ-S; e.g., “I am looking for something that makes my life feel meaningful” and “I am seeking a purpose or mission for my life”), and Cronbach’s α coefficient = 0.89, 95% CI [0.88, 0.91], McDonald’s ω coefficient = 0.89, 95%CI [0.87, 0.91]. The presence of meaning subscale is comprised of the remaining five items of the measure (MLQ-P; e.g., “I understand my life’s meaning” and “My life has no clear purpose”), and Cronbach’s α coefficient = 0.87, 95%CI [0.85, 0.89], McDonald’s ω coefficient = 0.87, 95%CI [0.84, 0.89].

Big five personality traits

A short version of the standard BFI-10 (Rammstedt and John, 2007) and BFI-44 (John and Srivastava, 1999) was used to evaluate the Big Five personality traits: Agreeableness/Antagonism, Conscientiousness/Lack of direction, Emotional stability/Neuroticism, Extraversion/Introversion, and Openness/Closedness to experience. The Rammstedt and John BFI-10 scale includes two items for each of the five personality dimensions (e.g., Neuroticism: “gets nervous easily”; Extraversion: “is reserved”; Openness: “has an active imagination”; Agreeableness: “is generally trusting”; and Conscientiousness: “tends to be lazy”). Participants were asked to respond to each item indicating whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement, using a 5-point Likert-type scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Hebrew translation of the BFI-10 was found to be reliable and valid (e.g., Berkovich and Eyal, 2019).

Ambiguity tolerance

This scale was used to assess the individual’s cognitive tolerance range (from aversion to attraction) for situations that are unfamiliar or ambiguous (McLain, 2009). It included 13 items, such as “I avoid situations that are too complicated for me to easily understand” and “I find it hard to make a choice when the outcome is uncertain,” on a 5-point scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Hebrew translation of the MSTAT-II scale was found to be reliable and valid (e.g., Nadler and Braunstein-Berkovitch, 2017). Cronbach’s α coefficient = 0.74, 95%CI [0.70, 0.78], McDonald’s ω coefficient = 0.69.

Data analysis

In order to test and refine a preliminary items pool of the two subscales, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted. We followed the guidelines for developing and validating scales suggested by Boateng et al. (2018) and Carpenter (2018). First, Varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization was used, given that the two suggested factors refer to rather independent and distinct dimensions of the phenomena at hand. Specifically, the EFA was obtained using three methodologies: (1) Eigenvalue (EV) > 1; (2) Scree plot – random errors tend to converge on a linear line, data points beyond the break point “the knee” are considered actual factors (Auerswald and Moshagen, 2019); and (3) Parallel analysis – using a randomized data set with equal number of variables and equal number of observations to obtain parallel EVs, only actual EVs that are larger than the parallel ones are considered actual factors. The reference eigenvalues were calculated using the mean and 95th percentile of all eigenvalues generated by principal component analysis of the random data set (Hayton et al., 2004).

The final factors were derived using acceptable data reduction techniques, including the following guidelines: minimal loading in one item of 0.40, items are not loaded above 0.40 in more than factor, there are not loading gaps smaller than 0.20 between factors, and items have commonalities >0.50 (Yong et al., 2013; Howard, 2016). In the next step, internal reliabilities of the two subscales were assessed using both Cronbach’s alpha and total omega (McDonald, 1999; McNeish, 2018). Finally, in order to assess the discriminate and convergent validity of the new scale, pairwise Pearson correlations with Big Five personality dimensions, tolerance for ambiguity, and the search for and presence of meaning in life were calculated and compared.

Results: Study 1

We started the EFA with a total of 32 items, 10 of which referred to the SA subscale and 22 to the MD subscale. The combined item pool was analyzed using maximum likelihood technique (Varimax rotation with Empirical Kaiser normalization (Braeken and Van Assen, 2017) to explore the factorial structure of the newly developed SAMD scale. Parallel analysis suggested two actual factors in the data.

Based on the two-factor structure that was found through both iterations, we employed another round of exploratory factor analysis (See Scree-plot with original and parallel Eigenvalues on Figure 2). At this stage, data reduction was performed. Overall, 10 items were dropped over the course of 5 iterations. Eight items were dropped due to double loadings on both factors, while two items were dropped for low loadings on either factor. Based on the aforementioned analyses, the remaining 22 items converged into two factors (see Table 1 for details).Extraction (unrotated) loading for SA was 2.21 and its internal reliability was good as well, Cronbach’s McDonald’s ω coefficient = 0.86. Loading for MD was 9.11 and its internal reliability was good, Cronbach’s Together, both factors accounted for 51.46% of the variance in items and the Pearson correlation between both factors was significant, moderate, and positive: $\alpha =0.86\text{,}$ $95\%CI\left[0.84,0.88\right]\text{,}$ $\alpha =0.93,95\%CI\left[0.92,0.94\right],\mathrm{McDonald}\text{'}\mathrm{s}\omega \mathrm{coefficient}=0.93\text{.}$Together, both factors accounted for 51.46% of the variance in items and the Pearson correlation 329 between both factors was significant, moderate, and positive: $r=0.59,p<0.001$ .

FIGURE 2

Figure 2. Scree plot with original and parallel analysis Eigenvalues.

As for the prevalence of synchronicity experiences, all participants reported they experienced at least one or more such encounters. As Table 2 shows, when asked to estimate the frequency of synchronicity experiences in their daily lives on a scale from “never” (0) to “all the time” (5), the average response of the sample ranged between “twice or more” (2) to “rarely” (3) (M = 2.26, Mdn = 2.22, Mode = 2, SD = 0.99, range 5, skewness = 0.02, Kurtosis = −0.39). The distribution of synchronicity awareness is presented in Figure 3. The results suggest that synchronicity experiences are quite common, yet the tendency to be aware of such experiences varies between individuals. The distribution of synchronicity meaning-detecting was M = 4.73, Mdn = 4.85, Mode = 4.77, SD = 1.23, range 5.77, skewness = −0.42, Kurtosis = −0.34, and is presented in Figure 4.

TABLE 2

Table 2. Study 1-means, standard deviations, and correlations with significance.

FIGURE 3

Figure 3. The distribution of synchronicity awareness.

FIGURE 4

Figure 4. The distribution of synchronicity meaning-detecting.

Next, we calculated Pearson correlations of each of the factors with the Big Five personality dimensions and tolerance for ambiguity and search for and presence of meaning in life. As can be seen in Table 2, and as predicted, synchronicity awareness and meaning-detecting scores were positively associated with extraversion (r = 0.18, p < 0.001; r = 0.20, p > 0.001, respectively), agreeableness (r = 0.12, p = 0.02; r = 0.17, p < 0.001, respectively), openness to experience (r = 0.39, p < 0.001; r = 0.30, p < 0.001, respectively), presence of meaning (r = 0.25, p < 0.001, r = 0.42, p < 0.001, respectively), search for meaning (r = 0.21, p < 0.001, r = 0.42, p < 0.001, respectively), and tolerance for ambiguity (r = 0.22, p < 0.001, r = 0.18, p < 0.01, respectively). Synchronicity meaning-detecting scores were also positively associated with conscientiousness (r = 0.18, p < 0.001). The results support the contention that synchronicity awareness and meaning-detecting reflect related yet distinct constructs.

Materials and methods: Study 2

Study 2 sought to expand the exploration of Study 1 by: (1) replicating its results in an independent and larger sample; (2) examining whether synchronicity scales are associated with measures of well-being; and (3) exploring the mediating roles of synchronicity awareness and meaning-detecting, optimism, and presence of meaning between search for meaning and life satisfaction.

Participants

The second sample was another independent representative sample of the Israeli Jewish population. A priori power analysis of a linear multiple regression assessing a fixed model, R² deviation from zero (G*Power; Faul et al., 2007), revealed a required total n = 92 to determine at least a medium effect (f 2 = 0.15, α = 0.05, 1 − β = 0.80 with five predictors). Therefore, data was obtained from 440 participants through the same online panel as in Study 1. Invitations were sent only to registered participants who did not take part in the first study. All participants on the panel had expressed their consent to participate in the study. Of the participants, 66.4% were women, 33.8% had a BA degree, and 24.9% had an MA degree or higher. Furthermore, 63.2% of the participants were married, 55.2% of them were secular, and the rest reported various levels of religiosity. Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 85, with a mean age of 43.44 (SD = 15.59).

Measures

Synchronicity awareness and meaning-detecting

The SAMD scale used in the second study was comprised of the two subscales that were developed in the first study: (a) synchronicity awareness (SA), and (b) synchronicity meaning-detecting (MD). Similar to Study 1, the SA subscale referred to awareness of the occurrence of synchronicity events. It involved 9 items using a 6-point scale (see Table 1) and included the same instructions as in Study 1. Cronbach’s α coefficient = 0.87, 95%CI [0.85, 0.89], McDonald’s ω coefficient = 0.90, 95%CI [0.84, 0.89]. The MD subscale referred to the meaning detected in the synchronicity experiences, involved 13 items using a 7-point scale (see Table 1), and included the same instructions as in Study 1. Cronbach’s α coefficient = 0.93, 95%CI [0.92, 0.94], McDonald’s ω coefficient = 0.94, 95%CI [0.92, 0.94].

Dispositional optimism

Optimism was measured by the validated Hebrew Optimism subscale of the LOT-R (Scheier and Carver, 1995; Wong and Lim, 2009; Palgi et al., 2011). The items are presented on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 0 (do not agree at all) to 4 (definitely agree). Sample items include: “In uncertain times, I usually expect the best,” “I am always optimistic about my future,” and “Overall, I expect more good things to happen to me than bad.” For the present sample, Cronbach’s α coefficient = 0.66, 95%CI [0.60, 0.70], McDonald’s ω coefficient = 0.62 95%CI [0.51, 0.68].

Meaning in life

This scale was used to assess the search for and presence of meaning in the individual’s life, with “search for” and “presence of” representing two subscales of the overall measure. Both subscales were rated using a 1 (absolutely untrue) to 7 (absolutely true) Likert scale (Steger et al., 2006). The present study used the Hebrew version of this questionnaire (Littman-Ovadia and Steger, 2010). The search for meaning subscale is comprised of five items (MLQ-S; e.g., “I am looking for something that makes my life feel meaningful” and “I am seeking a purpose or mission for my life”). Cronbach’s α coefficient = 0.88, 95%CI [0.86, 0.89], McDonald’s ω coefficient = 0.88 95%CI [0.85, 0.90]. The presence of meaning subscale is comprised of the remaining five items of the measure (MLQ-P; e.g., “I understand my life’s meaning” and “My life has no clear purpose”). Cronbach’s α coefficient = 0.85, 95%CI [0.83, 0.87], McDonald’s ω coefficient = 0.85, 95%CI [0.82, 0.88].

Depression

Depression was measured by the CES-D (Radloff, 1977). Participants reported depressive symptoms experienced during the past week (e.g., “I felt depressed”), measured on a 4-point scale from 0 (rarely or none of the time, less than 1 day) to 3 (all of the time, 5–7 days). We used the shortened (8 items) and validated to Hebrew version (Shmotkin and Keinan, 2011; Karim et al., 2015). Cronbach’s α coefficient = 0.89, 95%CI [0.88, 0.91], McDonald’s ω coefficient = 0.90, 95%CI [0.88, 0.91].

Anxiety

Anxiety was measured by the GAD-7, which consists of seven items measuring worry and anxiety symptoms (Spitzer et al., 2006). Each item is scored on a 4-point Likert scale (0–3) with total scores ranging from 0 to 21, with higher scores reflecting more severe anxiety. Scores above 10 are considered to be in the clinical range (Spitzer et al., 2006). We used the Hebrew validated version, which has shown good reliability and construct validity (e.g., Savitsky et al., 2020). Cronbach’s α coefficient = 0.87, 95%CI [0.85, 0.89], McDonald’s ω coefficient = 0.87, 95%CI [0.85, 0.89].

Satisfaction with life

To measure life satisfaction, we used the Hebrew-validated version of the 5-item SWLS, presented on a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), e.g., “The conditions of my life are excellent” (Diener et al., 1985; Anaby et al., 2010). For the present sample, Cronbach’s α coefficient = 0.87, 95%CI [0.85, 0.89], McDonald’s ω coefficient = 0.87 95%CI [0.85, 0.89].

Data analysis

In order to validate the structure of the new SAMD scale, statistical analyses were conducted using R version 4.0.3 and R studio version 1.3.1093. To test the suggested statistical model, we employed confirmatory factor analysis and path analysis techniques using the lavaan package for R (Rosseel, 2012). Based on accepted practices (Hoyle and Panter, 1995; Mueller and Hancock, 2019), the fit of the model to the data was evaluated using several goodness of fit indices.

Three absolute fit indices were used: the χ² statistic, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and the Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual (SRMR). Four additional relative fit indices were used: the Normed Fit Index (NFI), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI). An expected cross validation index (ECVI) was calculated for the model. A non-significant χ² statistic, RMSEA and SRMR scores below.06, as well as NFI, CFI, TLI, and GFI values above 0.95, indicate excellent fit, whereas SRMR values below 0.08 and NFI, CFI, TLI, and GFI above 0.90 indicate adequate fit. Lastly, ECVI were evaluated, since lower values are considered better.

Additionally, we compared the suggested model to a one-factor model to see if the two-factor model yielded a better fit to the data. After the final model was established, we tested the pairwise correlations between all the study variables and explored the research hypotheses using a path analysis model. As a part of the model test, we likewise tested for the significance of the indirect effects to determine if mediation effects would take place.

Results: Study 1

Preliminary analysis

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on both subscales of the SAMD scale. The analysis demonstrated that the suggested two-factor model of the scale had an acceptable fit with the data, $\begin{array}{l}{\chi }^2\left(204\right)=571.35,p<0.001,NFI=0.89,TLI\\ =0.92,CFI=0.93,\mathit{RMSEA}=0.06,GFI\\ =0.89,\mathit{ECVI}=1.52,\mathit{SRMR}=0.05\text{,}\end{array}$and that all loadings exceeded 0.57 and were significant. In order to further validate the two-factor structure of the model, a one-factor model was also examined. The analysis demonstrated that the one-factor model had a poor fit with the data, $\begin{array}{l}{\chi }^2\left(209\right)=1382.06,p<0.001,NFI=0.74,\\ TLI=0.75,CFI=0.77,\mathit{RMSEA}=0.11,\\ GFI=0.71,\mathit{ECVI}=3.34,\mathit{SRMR}=0.09\end{array}$ . Furthermore, the two-factor model was found to be significantly better than a one-factor model fit ( $\Delta {\chi }^2\left(5\right)=810.71,p<0.001$ ).

These results substantiate the two-factor structure of the new scale. As can be seen in Table 3, all items indicate significant and positive estimates for two factors. Furthermore, the synchronicity awareness subscale had Cronbach’s $\begin{array}{l}\alpha =.87,95\%CI\left[0.85,0.89\right],\mathrm{McDonald},\mathrm{s}\omega \\ \mathrm{coefficient}=0.90,95\%CI\left[0.84,0.89\right]\text{.}\end{array}$The meaning-detection subscale had Cronbach’s $\begin{array}{l}\alpha =0.93,95\%CI\left[0.92,0.94\right],\mathrm{McDonald},\mathrm{s}\omega \\ \mathrm{coefficient}=0.94,95\%CI\left[0.92,0.94\right]\text{.}\end{array}$Thus the structure of the new scale was replicated and validated in a new sample.

TABLE 3

Table 3. Study 2-synchronicity items factor loadings (CFA).

As for the prevalence of synchronicity experiences, in the second sample (N = 440), 99% of the participants reported they experienced at least one or more such encounters (only 4 out of 440 reported they did not experience any of the given examples). As Table 4 shows, when asked to estimate the frequency of synchronicity experiences in their daily lives on a scale between “never” (0) to “all the time” (5), the average response of the sample ranged between “twice or more” (2) to “rarely” (3) (M = 2.29, SD = 0.99, Mdn = 2.22, Mode = 1.89, range 5.00, skewness = 0.031, Kurtosis = −0.37). The distribution of synchronicity awareness in the second sample is presented in Figure 3. As for the distribution of meaning-detection scores, we found that M = 4.74, SD = 1.21, Mdn = 4.81, Mode = 5.38, range 5.77, skewness = −0.038, Kurtosis = −0.38 (the distribution is presented in Figure 4). Taken together, the findings confirm the data from the first sample and suggest that synchronicity experiences are quite common and that the tendency to be aware of such experiences varies between individuals.

TABLE 4

Table 4. Means, standard deviations, internal reliabilities and zero-order correlations of study 2.

After the revalidation of the new scales’ structure, our next step was to examine the suggested model hypotheses. First, to estimate the associations between the second study’s variables, we conducted an analysis of all pairwise Pearson correlations (see Table 4). The analysis revealed that life satisfaction was significantly and positively correlated with synchronicity awareness ( $r=0.16,p<0.001$ ), synchronicity meaning-detecting ( $r=0.12,p=0.01$ ), optimism ( $r=0.47,p<0.001$ ), and presence of meaning ( $r=0.48,p<0.001$ ). No correlation was found between search for meaning and life satisfaction ( $r=0.01,p=0.78$ ). Furthermore, life satisfaction was found to be negatively correlated both with depression ( $r=-0.42,p<0.001$ ) and with anxiety ( $r=-0.35,p<0.001$ ).

It was further found that synchronicity awareness is significantly and positively correlated with synchronicity meaning-detecting ( $r=0.61,p<0.001$ ), optimism ( $r=0.18,p<0.001$ ), search for meaning ( $r=0.26,p<0.001$ ), presence of meaning ( $r=0.20,p<0.001$ ), and depression ( $r=0.15,p<0.001$ ). Synchronicity meaning-detecting, in turn, was found to be significantly and positively correlated with optimism ( $r=0.19,p<0.001$ ), search for meaning ( $r=0.41,p<0.001$ ), presence of meaning ( $r=0.31,p<0.001$ ), and depression ( $r=0.15,p=0.001$ ). Optimism was further found to be correlated with presence of meaning ( $r=0.40,p<0.001$ ) but not with search for meaning ( $r=-0.02,p=0.61$ ). Optimism was, likewise, found to have negative correlations both with depression ( $r=-0.37,p<0.001$ ) and with anxiety ( $r=-0.34,p<0.001$ ).

Search for meaning was positively correlated with presence of meaning ( $r=0.23,p<0.001$ ), depression ( $r=0.22,p<0.001$ ), and anxiety ( $r=0.14,p<0.001$ ), while presence of meaning was found to have negative correlations both with depression ( $r=-0.18,p<0.001$ ) and with anxiety ( $r=-0.17,p<0.001$ ). Finally, depression and anxiety had a positive correlation ( $r=.71,p<0.001$ ).

Hence, as expected, search for meaning was positively associated with synchronicity awareness, which was positively associated with synchronicity meaning-detecting. Moreover, as predicted, the tendency to detect meaning in synchronicity experiences was positively correlated with both the presence of meaning in life and a sense of optimism, which were positively associated with life satisfaction.

Test of indirect effects

We used path analysis (see Figure 1 for the theoretical model). Following Hayes, 2017) multiple mediation analysis outline, our hypotheses were tested using 10,000 bootstrapped samples and 95% confidence intervals. The initial model’s fit (marked by solid lines with arrows in Figure 5) did not reach an acceptable level. Thus, modification indices were inspected for theoretically viable paths (dashed lines with arrows in Figure 5 indicate paths added to the initial model). The final model had fit indices that met criteria for good to excellent model fit: $\begin{array}{l}{\chi }^2\left(6\right)=17.12,p=0.01,\mathit{RMSEA}=0.06,\\ NFI=0.97,TLI=0.95,CFI=.98,\\ \mathit{SRMR}=0.03,GFI=0.99,\mathit{ECVI}=0.10\end{array}$ . All direct paths in the model were significant and the explained variance in the model for synchronicity awareness was $R^2=0.066$ , for synchronicity meaning-detecting was $R^2=0.44$ , for optimism was $R^2=0.061$ , for presence of meaning was $R^2=0.10\text{,}$ and for life satisfaction was $R^2=0.327$ .

FIGURE 5

Figure 5. The model coefficients estimated via path analysis. Solid lines with arrows indicate paths in the original model. Dashed lines with arrows indicate paths added from modification indices. Numbers above lines indicate standardized path coefficients and significance values. ***p < 0.001.

Table 5 details all standardized, unstandardized, and significance of the model coefficients. Furthermore, testing for the indirect effects between search for meaning and life satisfaction in the model via the bootstrapping procedure (Hayes, 2009) yielded five significant indirect effects, indicating significant mediation effects. Specifically, the sequential indirect effect of search for meaning on life satisfaction through synchronicity awareness, synchronicity meaning-detecting, and optimism was found to be significant: $b=0.01,se=0.003,95\%CI\left[0.006,0.019\right]$ .

TABLE 5

Table 5. Standardized and unstandardized coefficients in the path analysis model.

The sequential indirect effect of search for meaning on life satisfaction through synchronicity meaning-detecting and optimism was found to be significant: $b=0.021,se=0.006,95\%CI\left[0.012,0,036\right]$ . The sequential indirect effect of search for meaning on life satisfaction through synchronicity meaning-detecting and presence of meaning was found to be significant: $b=0.027,se=0.007,95\%CI\left[0.015,0.043\right]$ . The sequential indirect effect of search for meaning on life satisfaction through synchronicity awareness, synchronicity meaning-detecting, and presence of meaning was found to be significant: $b=0.013,se=0.004,95\%CI\left[0.008,0.022\right]$ . Also, the indirect effect of search for meaning on life satisfaction through optimism was found to be significant: $b=-0.051,se=0.018,95\%CI\left[-0.09,-0.02\right]$ . See Table 6 and Figure 5 for the final model paths with their standardized coefficients.

TABLE 6

Table 6. Indirect effects from search for meaning on life satisfaction testing both parallel and sequential mediation effects.

In sum, Study 2 further validated the internal structure of the SAMD scale in an independent and larger sample. In addition, as suggested in the model, search for meaning was positively associated with synchronicity awareness (a), which was associated with higher synchronicity meaning-detecting (b). In addition, higher tendency to detect meaning in synchronicity experiences was positively associated with both presence of meaning in life (c) and a sense of optimism (d), and each in turn was related to enhanced life satisfaction (e and f).

Discussion

The first aim of the current study (encompassing the two individual studies described here) was to develop a valid tool to assess individual differences in the tendency to be aware of synchronicity experiences and to detect meaning in them. In the two samples, a vast majority of the participants reported experiencing at least one synchronicity event. This finding extends previous research documenting the scope and prevalence of the phenomenon among nonclinical, general population samples (e.g., Bright et al., 2005; Fach et al., 2013), suggesting that awareness of synchronicity experiences is rather widespread.

More significantly, the present study involved the development and validation of a measure for assessing individual difference in the awareness and meaning-detecting of synchronicity experiences: the SAMD scale. The two-factor structure of the questionnaire that emerged from the data supports the “bottom-up” model of REM (Russo-Netzer and Icekson, 2020). The two factors demonstrated high internal reliability and appear to capture distinct yet related aspects of the synchronicity experience phenomenon.

Another contribution of the present study is a better understanding of the construct of synchronicity awareness by adding the dimension of meaning-detecting. While previous studies focused mainly on the frequency of noticing such events (e.g., Coleman et al., 2009; Fach et al., 2013), the present study also explored the meaning individuals attribute to such experiences. Furthermore, the findings suggest that synchronicity awareness and meaning-detecting are positively associated with openness to experience and tolerance for ambiguity. This finding may correspond with observations from recent brain studies, suggesting that the tendency to experience meaningful coincidence was negatively correlated with gray matter in the brain in regions involved in causality detection and emotional control (Unger et al., 2021). This delineates an interesting direction for further research exploring the neural characteristics and personality traits of individuals who are more prone to be aware of and make sense of synchronicity experiences.

The second aim of the present study was to extend previous knowledge on the complex relation between the search for meaning and life satisfaction, pointing out the role of synchronicity awareness and meaning-detecting as possible mediators. Previous studies revealed a complex relationship between the search for meaning in life and well-being (e.g., Steger et al., 2011; Yek et al., 2017). The results of the present model suggest that individuals who search for meaning and are open to synchronicity events and manage to make sense of them may experience more meaning and optimism, which eventually may contribute to greater life satisfaction. These findings correspond with previous studies suggesting that the search for meaning in life may contribute to life satisfaction (e.g., Datu, 2015; Russo-Netzer, 2019) under certain circumstances. More specifically, this study adds an underexplored, potential link in the chain between these two constructs, suggesting that the interplay between these constructs is not straightforward, thus calling future studies to further explore the contribution of synchronicity as well as other potential mediators.

The findings also indicate that, as was found in an ample number of previous studies (Daukantaitė and Zukauskiene, 2012; Zhang et al., 2014; Busseri and Choma, 2016), higher optimism is positively correlated with greater life satisfaction. More importantly, we also found that optimism mediates between meaning-detecting of synchronicity experiences and life satisfaction. It is possible that when individuals manage to detect meaning in unexpected, unexplained experiences in their environment, they regain a sense of order and coherence that may cultivate their optimism. Along these lines, it was found that when contemplating future decisions in business and leadership, individuals have utilized synchronicities (Laveman, 2014; Beitman, 2016; Cristofaro, 2021). This direction extends previous limited knowledge on the ways in which people can enhance positive expectations of the future (Malouff, 2017) and may open up new directions for further research and practice.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

The present study has several limitations that should be taken into consideration. First, the study data was collected from a single source: self-report surveys, a method that, although considered suitable for assessing subjective experiences (e.g., Sheldon and Lyubomirsky, 2007), could also lead to some biases in participants’ responses. To cope with this limitation, we used procedural design methods [confidentiality and anonymity, separate questionnaire sections and instructions, etc.; Podsakoff et al., 2003)]. Future research could involve other sources (such as brain and behavioral measures) in order to provide further evidence beyond self-reporting methods.

Second, the present findings are correlational and are based on cross-sectional research, thus causal directionality implied should be examined with longitudinal designs or intervention and experimental research to further validate and refine the newly developed measure of synchronicity awareness and meaning-detecting (the SAMD scale) and its implications. For example, future research could use daily diary methods (e.g., Rodríguez-Carvajal et al., 2019).

Lastly, the scope of the present study mainly focused on the potential positive aspects of synchronicity awareness and meaning-detecting. Yet, it should be noted that as we still know rather little about this complex construct and the boundary conditions that may hinder its beneficial outcomes, thus it may be worthwhile to explore when such processes reflect healthy and non-healthy experiences. Given the positive, yet weak, association that was found in the present study between the two factors of synchronicity scale and depression, it may be possible that overinterpretation or excessive rumination over unexpected events may trigger a distorted sense of meaning and may lead to undesirable experiences. For example, it was previously suggested that unregulated explanatory models regarding coincidence experiences may lead to psychopathology processes such as paranoia or magical thinking (e.g., Beitman et al., 2010).

Overall, despite these limitations, this study extends existing literature of clinical reports and case studies on the phenomenon of synchronicity by taking a step further to provide possible directions to better understand the underlying mechanisms leading from one’s search for meaning to life satisfaction. The results imply potential applied pathways for the development of therapeutic, organizational, and educational practical interventions to enhance well-being. Such a mindset may support individuals in coping with the challenges of our changing world, where uncertainty and complexity appear to be a significant part of our day-to-day reality.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by University of Haifa. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

PR-N and TI have made substantial contributions to the conception of the study, the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of the research data, and in preparing the manuscript for publication. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Revital Sela for her valuable assistance with data collection and Yaron Mor for his statistical help.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1053296/full#supplementary-material

References

Abu-Raiya, H., Sasson, T., and Russo-Netzer, P. (2021). Presence of meaning, search for meaning, religiousness, satisfaction with life and depressive symptoms among a diverse Israeli sample. Int. J. Psychol. 56, 276–285. doi: 10.1002/IJOP.12709

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Alarcon, G., Bowling, N., and Khazon, S. (2013). Great expectations: a meta-analytic examination of optimism and hope. Pers. Individ. Dif. 54, 821–827. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.12.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Anaby, D., Jarus, T., and Zumbo, B. D. (2010). Psychometric evaluation of the hebrew language version of the satisfaction with life scale. Soc. Indic. Res. 96, 267–274. doi: 10.1007/S11205-009-9476-Z

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Auerswald, M., and Moshagen, M. (2019). How to determine the number of factors to retain in exploratory factor analysis: a comparison of extraction methods under realistic conditions. Psychol. Methods 24, 468–491. doi: 10.1037/met0000200

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Beitman, B. (2016). Connecting with coincidence: the new science for using synchronicity and serendipity in your life. Deerfield Beach, FL: HCI.

Google Scholar

Beitman, B., Celebi, E., and Coleman, S. L. (2010). “Synchronicity and healing”, in Integr. Psychiatry. eds. D. Monti and B. D. Beitman (New York: Oxford University Press), 445–484.

Google Scholar

Berkovich, I., and Eyal, O. (2019). Teachers’ big five personality traits, emotion regulation patterns, and moods: mediation and prototype analyses. Res. Pap. Educ. 36, 332–354. doi: 10.1080/02671522.2019.1677758

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., and Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front. Public Health 6, 149–167. doi: 10.3389/FPUBH.2018.00149/FULL

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Braeken, J., and Van Assen, M. A. (2017). An empirical Kaiser criterion. Psychol. Methods 22, 450–466. doi: 10.1037/met0000074

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bressan, P. (2002). The connection between random sequences, everyday coincidences, and belief in the paranormal. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 16, 17–34. doi: 10.1002/ACP.754

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bright, J., Pryor, R., and Harpham, L. (2005). The role of chance events in career decision making. J. Vocat. Behav. 66, 561–576. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Busseri, M. A. (2013). How dispositional optimists and pessimists evaluate their past, present and anticipated future life satisfaction: a lifespan approach. Eur. J. Personal. 27, 185–199. doi: 10.1002/per.1854

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Busseri, M. A., and Choma, B. L. (2016). Reevaluating the link between dispositional optimism and positive functioning using a temporally expanded perspective. J. Posit. Psychol. 11, 286–302.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Carpenter, S. (2018). Ten steps in scale development and reporting: a guide for researchers. Commun. Methods Meas. 12, 25–44. doi: 10.1080/19312458.2017.1396583

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Carver, C., and Scheier, M. (1994). Situational coping and coping dispositions in a stressful transaction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 66, 184–195. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.184

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Carver, C., and Scheier, M. (2014). Dispositional optimism. Trends Cogn. Sci. 18, 293–299. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.02.003

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Coleman, S., Beitman, B., and Celebi, E. (2009). Weird coincidences commonly occur. Psychiatr. Ann. 39, 265–270. doi: 10.3928/00485713-20090421-03

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Connolly, A. (2015). Bridging the reductive and the synthetic: some reflections on the clinical implications of synchronicity. J. Anal. Psychol. 60, 159–178. doi: 10.1111/1468-5922.12142

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Costello, A. B., and Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Res. Eval. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 10:868. doi: 10.7275/jyj1-4868

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cristofaro, M. (2021). Unfolding irrationality: how do meaningful coincidences influence management decisions? Int. J. Organ. Anal. 29, 301–321. doi: 10.1108/IJOA-01-2020-2010/FULL/HTML

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Czekierda, K., Banik, A., Park, C. L., and Luszczynska, A. (2017). Meaning in life and physical health: systematic review and meta-analysis. Taylor Francis 11, 387–418. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2017.1327325

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Datu, J. A. D. (2015). Validating the revised self-construal scale in the Philippines. Curr. Psychol. 34, 626–633. doi: 10.1007/S12144-014-9275-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Daukantaitė, D., and Zukauskiene, R. (2012). Optimism and subjective well-being: affectivity plays a secondary role in the relationship between optimism and global life satisfaction in the middle-aged women. Longitudinal and cross-cultural findings. J. Happiness Stud. 13, 1–16. doi: 10.1007/S10902-010-9246-2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychol. Bull. 95, 542–575. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Diener, E., Emmons, R., Sem, R., and Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. J. Pers. Assess. 49, 71–75. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Diener, E., Heintzelman, S., Kushlev, K., Tay, L., Wirtz, D., Lutes, L. D., et al. (2017). Findings all psychologists should know from the new science on subjective well-being. Can. Psychol. 58, 87–104. doi: 10.1037/cap0000063

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Driver, J. (2001). A selective review of selective attention research from the past century. Br. J. Psychol. 92, 53–78. doi: 10.1348/000712601162103

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Emerson, S. D., Guhn, M., and Gadermann, A. M. (2017). Measurement invariance of the satisfaction with life scale: reviewing three decades of research. Qual. Life Res. 26, 2251–2264. doi: 10.1007/S11136-017-1552-2

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fach, W., Atmanspacher, H., Landolt, K., Wyss, T., and Rössler, W. (2013). A comparative study of exceptional experiences of clients seeking advice and of subjects in an ordinary population. Front. Psychol. 4. doi: 10.3389/FPSYG.2013.00065/FULL

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., and Buchner, A. (2007). G*power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 39, 175–191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Frankl, V. (1963). Man’s search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy, Part One. Washington Square Press.

Google Scholar

Geary, D. (2004). Origin of mind: Evolution of brain, cognition, and intelligence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Google Scholar

Guindon, M. H., and Hanna, F. J. (2002). Coincidence, happenstance, serendipity, fate, or the hand of god: case studies in synchronicity. Career Dev. Q. 50, 195–208. doi: 10.1002/J.2161-0045.2002.TB00894.X

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hanson, D., and Klimo, J. (1998). Toward a phenomenology of synchronicity. Phenomenol. Inquiry Psychol. 281–307. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4899-0125-5_13

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond baron and Kenny: statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Commun. Monogr. 76, 408–420. doi: 10.1080/03637750903310360

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hayes, A. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis Hayes Guilford Press.

Google Scholar

Hayton, J., Allen, D., and Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: a tutorial on parallel analysis. Organ. Res. Methods 7, 191–205. doi: 10.1177/1094428104263675

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Heine, S. J., Proulx, T., and Vohs, K. D. (2006). The meaning maintenance model: on the coherence of social motivations. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 10, 88–110. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR1002_1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Heintzelman, S. J., and King, L. A. (2014). (the feeling of) meaning-as-information. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 18, 153–167. doi: 10.1177/1088868313518487

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Heintzelman, S., Trent, J., and King, L. (2013). Encounters with objective coherence and the experience of meaning in life. Psychol. Sci. 24, 991–998. doi: 10.1177/0956797612465878

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Henry, J. (1993). Coincidence experience survey. J. Soc. Psych. Res. 59, 97–108.

Google Scholar

Hernández, A., Hidalgo, M. R. H., et al. (2020). International test commission guidelines for test adaptation: A criterion checklist. Psicothema 32, 390–398. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2019.306

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ho, M., Cheung, F., and Cheung, S. (2010). The role of meaning in life and optimism in promoting well-being. Pers. Individ. Dif. 48, 658–663. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.008

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hocoy, D. (2012). Sixty years later: the enduring allure of synchronicity. J. Humanist. Psychol. 52, 467–478. doi: 10.1177/0022167812436427

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Howard, M. (2016). A review of exploratory factor analysis decisions and overview of current practices: what we are doing and how can we improve? Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 32, 51–62. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2015.1087664

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hoyle, R. H., and Panter, A. T. (1995). “Writing about structural equation models” in Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. ed. R. H. Hoyle (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), 158–176.

Google Scholar

James, W. A. (1890/1950). The principles of psychology London: Macmillan.

Google Scholar

John, O., and Srivastava, S. (1999). “The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives,” in Handbook of personality theory and research. eds. L. Pervin and O. John (Guilford Press), 102–138.

Google Scholar

Jung, C. G. (1950/1997) The collected works. Vol. 9. Part II. R. F. C. Hull, Trans.

Google Scholar

Jung, C. G. (1969). “Synchronicity: An acausal connecting principle,” in The collected works of C. C. G. (Bollingen Series: Princeton University Press)

Google Scholar

Karim, J., Weisz, R., Bibi, Z., and ur Rehman, S., (2015). Validation of the eight-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) among older adults. Curr. Psychol. 34, 681–692. doi: 10.1007/S12144-014-9281-Y

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Krok, D., and Telka, E. (2019). Optimism mediates the relationships between meaning in life and subjective and psychological well-being among late adolescents. Curr. Issues Pers. Psychol. 7, 32–42. doi: 10.5114/cipp.2018.79960

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Krumboltz, J. D., Foley, P. F., and Cotter, E. W. (2013). Applying the happenstance learning theory to involuntary career transitions. Career Dev. Q. 61, 15–26. doi: 10.1002/J.2161-0045.2013.00032.X

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Laveman, D. (2014). “Business leadership, synchronicity, and psychophysical reality,” in The Pauli-Jung conjecture and its impact today. eds. H. Atmanspacher and C. Fuchs (Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic), 275–305.

Google Scholar

Layous, K., Katherine Nelson, S., and Lyubomirsky, S. (2013). What is the optimal way to deliver a positive activity intervention? The case of writing about One’s best possible selves. J. Happiness Stud. 14, 635–654. doi: 10.1007/S10902-012-9346-2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Littman-Ovadia, H., and Steger, M. (2010). Character strengths and well-being among volunteers and employees: toward an integrative model. J. Posit. Psychol. 5, 419–430. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2010.516765

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lombardo, P., Jones, W., Wang, L., Shen, X., and Goldner, E. M. (2018). The fundamental association between mental health and life satisfaction: results from successive waves of a Canadian national survey. BMC Public Health 18:342. doi: 10.1186/S12889-018-5235-X

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lounsbury, J. W., Saudargas, R. A., Gibson, L. W., and Leong, F. T. (2005). An investigation of broad and narrow personality traits in relation to general and domain-specific life satisfaction of college students. Res. High. Educ. 46, 707–729. doi: 10.1007/S11162-004-4140-6

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Main, R. (2011). Synchronicity and the limits of re-enchantment. Int. J. Jungian Stud. 3, 144–158. Available at: https://brill.com/view/journals/ijjs/3/2/article-p144_5.xml?casa_token=FGPcibPoouYAAAAA:wFe5CU8rlDvXjDCQXQtnhXTd0FQNmLBFbLG_EU9QaY6-CTfLmTztgYqJ7hfnJFR0fYo2ymSATg (Accessed August 31, 2022).

Google Scholar

Malouff, J. (2017). Can psychological interventions increase optimism? A meta-analysis. J. Posit. Psychol. 12, 594–604. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2016.1221122

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Marlo, H., and Jeffrey, S. K. (1998). Synchronicity and psychotherapy: Unconscious communication in the psychotherapeutic relationship. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training. 35, 13–22.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Google Scholar

McLain, D. (2009). Evidence of the properties of an ambiguity tolerance measure: the multiple stimulus types ambiguity tolerance scale–II (MSTAT–II). Psychol. Rep. 105, 975–988. doi: 10.2466/PR0.105.3.975-988

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychol. Methods 23, 412–433. doi: 10.1037/met0000144

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mueller, R., and Hancock, G. (2019). “Structural equation modeling,” in The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences. eds. G. Hancock, L. Stapleton, and O. Mueller (Routledge), 445–456.

Google Scholar

Nadler, S., and Braunstein-Berkovitch, H. (2017). Tolerance for ambiguity as a resource for coping and vocational identity formation in a postmodern work world: a relational perspective people at work Israeli. J. Career Dev. 10, 32–39.

Google Scholar

Palgi, Y., Shrira, A., and Ben-Ezra, M. (2011). The relationships between daily optimism, daily pessimism, and affect differ in young and old age. Pers. Individ. Dif. 50, 1294–1299. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.02.030

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Park, C. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: an integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychol. Bull. 136, 257–301. doi: 10.1037/a0018301

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., and Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Proulx, T., and Heine, S. J. (2008). The case of the transmogrifying experimenter: affirmation of a moral schema following implicit change detection. Psychol. Sci. 19, 1294–1300. doi: 10.1111/J.1467-9280.2008.02238.X

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 1, 385–401. doi: 10.1177/014662167700100306

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rammstedt, B., and John, O. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: a 10-item short version of the big five inventory in English and German. J. Res. Pers. 41, 203–212. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rodríguez-Carvajal, R., Herrero, M., van Dierendonck, D., de Rivas, S., and Moreno-Jiménez, B. (2019). Servant leadership and goal attainment through meaningful life and vitality: a diary study. J. Happiness Stud. 20, 499–521. doi: 10.1007/S10902-017-9954-Y

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Roesler, C. (2018). “Synchronistic experiences in psychotherapy: empirical studies,” in Research in analytical psychology. ed. C. Roesler (Routledge), 244–254.

Google Scholar

Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J. Stat. Softw. 48, 1–36. Available at: https://www.jstatsoft.org/article/view/v048i02 (Accessed December 01, 2022).

Google Scholar

Roxburgh, E., Ridgway, S., and Roe, C. (2015). Exploring the meaning in meaningful coincidences: an interpretative phenomenological analysis of synchronicity in therapy. Eur. J. Psychother. Couns. 17, 144–161. doi: 10.1080/13642537.2015.1027784

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Russo-Netzer, P. (2019). Prioritizing meaning as a pathway to meaning in life and well-being. J. Happiness Stud. 20, 1863–1891. doi: 10.1007/S10902-018-0031-Y

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Russo-Netzer, P., and Icekson, T. (2020). Engaging with life: synchronicity experiences as a pathway to meaning and personal growth. Curr. Psychol. 41, 597–610. doi: 10.1007/s12144-019-00595-1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Russo-Netzer, P., and Shoshani, A. (2020). Authentic inner compass, well-being, and prioritization of positivity and meaning among adolescents. Pers. Individ. Dif. 167:110248. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110248

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sacco, R. (2019). The predictability of synchronicity experience: results from a survey of Jungian analysts. Int. J. Psychol. Stud. 11, 46–62. doi: 10.5539/ijps.v11n3p46

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Savitsky, B., Findling, Y., Ereli, A., and Hendel, T. (2020). Anxiety and coping strategies among nursing students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nurse Educ. Pract. 46:102809. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2020.102809

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Scheier, M. F., and Carver, C. (1995). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): a reevaluation of the life orientation test individual and dyadic effects of optimism on depression article. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67, 1063–1078. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1063

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sheldon, K. M., and Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: the self-concordance model. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 76, 482–497. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.3.482

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sheldon, K., and Lyubomirsky, S. (2007). Is it possible to become happier? and if so, how? Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 1, 129–145. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00002.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Shmotkin, D., and Keinan, G. (2011). Who is prone to react to coinciding threats of terrorism and war? Exploring vulnerability through global versus differential reactivity. Community Ment. Health J. 47, 35–46. doi: 10.1007/S10597-010-9354-9

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Spitzer, R., Kroenke, K., Williams, J., and Löwe, B. (2006). A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch. Intern. Med. 166, 1092–1097. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Steelman, Z., Hammer, B., and Limayem, M. (2014). Data collection in the digital age: innovative alternatives to student samples. MIS Q. 38, 355–378. doi: 10.25300/MISQ/2014/38.2.02

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Steger, M. F. (2012). Making meaning in life. Psychol. Inq. 23, 381–385. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2012.720832

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Steger, M., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., and Kaler, M. (2006). The meaning in life questionnaire: assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. J. Couns. Psychol. 53, 80–93. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Steger, M. F., Kashdan, T. B., Sullivan, B. A., and Lorentz, D. (2008). Understanding the search for meaning in life: personality, cognitive style, and the dynamic between seeking and experiencing meaning. J. Pers. 76, 199–228. doi: 10.1111/J.1467-6494.2007.00484.X

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Steger, M., Oishi, S., and Kesebir, S. (2011). Is a life without meaning satisfying? The moderating role of the search for meaning in satisfaction with life judgments. J. Posit. Psychol. 6, 173–180. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2011.569171

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Toder-Alon, A., Icekson, T., and Shuv-Ami, A. (2018). Team identification and sports fandom as predictors of fan aggression: the moderating role of aging. Sport Manag. Rev. 22, 194–208. doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2018.02.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Unger, I., Wabnegger, A., and Schienle, A. (2021). The association between the propensity to experience meaningful coincidence and brain anatomy in healthy females: the moderating role of coping skills. Conscious. Cogn. 91:103132. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2021.103132

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Whitson, J. A., and Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Lacking control increases illusory pattern perception. Science 322, 115–117. doi: 10.1126/SCIENCE.1159845

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wong, S., and Lim, T. (2009). Hope versus optimism in Singaporean adolescents: contributions to depression and life satisfaction. Pers. Individ. Dif. 46, 648–652. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.01.009

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yek, M. H., Olendzki, N., Kekecs, Z., Patterson, V., and Elkins, G. (2017). Presence of meaning in life and search for meaning in life and relationship to health anxiety. Psychol. Rep. 120, 383–390. doi: 10.1177/0033294117697084

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yong, A., and Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutor. Quant. Methods Psychol. 9, 79–94.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Zhang, J., Miao, D., Sun, Y., Xiao, R., Ren, L., Xiao, W., et al. (2014). The impacts of attributional styles and dispositional optimism on subject well-being: a structural equation Modelling analysis. Soc. Indic. Res. 119, 757–769. doi: 10.1007/S11205-013-0520-7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar