Purpose in life and stress: Momentary associations from a micro-longitudinal study

Abstract

Purpose in life is an aspect of well-being associated with less subjective stress. The present research sought to expand this literature by testing the association between both dispositional and momentary purpose with stress in daily life using a micro-longitudinal study design. Participants (N=303) reported their dispositional purpose at baseline and reported their momentary purpose and stress three times a day for eight days. Between-person, dispositional purpose was associated with less momentary stress across the eight days tested with linear regression (β=−.29, 95% CI=−.39, -,18, p<.001); it was unrelated to variability in stress (β=.05, 95% CI=−.05, .14, p=.310). In contrast, the within-person analysis tested with multilevel modeling indicated that in moments when participants felt more purpose-driven than their average, they felt more stressed (b=.09, 95% CI=.06, .12, SE=.01, p<.001). This association was slightly stronger among participants with relatively lower dispositional purpose (b_interaction=−.04, SE=.02, 95% CI=−.08, −.01, p=.032). This study replicated the negative association between dispositional purpose and subjective stress when stress was measured at moments in daily life. It also found that feeling more purpose-driven than usual in the moment is stressful, a counterintuitive finding that, if replicated, suggests that striving for purpose can be stressful in the moment, even if feeling more purpose-driven in general is associated with lower stress.

Purpose in life is the feeling that one’s life is goal-oriented and has direction (Ryff, 1989). It is associated with better physical (Musich et al., 2018), mental (Wood & Joseph, 2010), social (Sutin et al., 2022), and cognitive (Sutin et al., 2024c) health. One mechanism through which purpose may be associated with better health outcomes is through less stress (Kim et al., 2019). That is, subjective feelings of stress are associated with an increased risk for poor health (Spruill et al., 2019; Santosa et al., 2021), and individuals higher in purpose tend to report less subjective stress (Glover et al., 2021; Scheier et al., 2006). A meta-analysis of 16 samples, for example, found that higher purpose was associated with less subjective stress, an association that was similar across age, sex, race, education, and culture (Sutin et al., 2024b).

The association between purpose in life and stress has been examined primarily between-person and cross-sectionally. Stress, however, is dynamic and fluctuates even across the course of a single day (Zawadzki et al., 2019). There is also growing evidence that purpose in life is likewise dynamic (Sutin et al., 2024a). Indeed, recent theoretical models of purpose include arguments for purpose as a state-like quality, in addition to a dispositional characteristic (Hill et al., 2023). This model suggests that variations in purpose can occur moment-to-moment, as well as day-to-day and month-to-month, which is supported by empirical evidence that purpose in life does vary across days (Kiang, 2012; Pfund et al., 2024; Pfund, Hofer, et al., 2022) to months (Pfund, DeLongis, et al., 2022). Recent ecological momentary assessment (EMA) research has shown that purpose has meaningful momentary, within-person fluctuations (Sutin et al., 2024a). Such fluctuations make theoretical sense such that individuals may feel that their life is purposeful overall (dispositional purpose) but at any given moment, an individual may or may not be engaging in activities they find purposeful. Preliminary evidence suggests that these momentary fluctuations are associated with other factors in conceptually expected ways (e.g., feeling more purposeful in the moment is associated with better momentary cognitive function; Sutin et al., 2024a).

At the daily level, purpose has been associated with several metrics related to stress. Higher daily purpose, for example, was associated with fewer stressors during the day during the pandemic (Hill et al., 2022), although dispositional purpose tends to be unrelated to the number of daily stressors at other times (Hill et al., 2018). Among adolescents, daily purpose in life is associated with feeling less daily distress and anxiety (Kiang, 2012) and greater subjective well-being (Ratner et al., 2023). These associations may be due, in part, to better regulation of stressors: Individuals higher in purpose tend to recover faster from stressors experienced in experimental, lab-based contexts (Fogelman & Canli, 2015; Schaefer et al., 2013) and tend to engage in a variety of coping strategies to manage distress in everyday life, as measured in observational studies (Pfund et al., 2023).

The growing evidence suggests daily associations between purpose and fewer stressors and less distress. Missing from this literature is research on the momentary association between purpose and stress. Such information is important because what happens in the moment throughout the day may presumably culminate in associations apparent from end-of-day evaluations and between-person associations. And, since momentary subjective feelings of stress have yet to be measured in daily studies of purpose in life, the short-term associations between purpose and stress have yet to be documented. Such measures will provide information on moment-to-moment dynamics of purpose and stress. Further, greater variability in stress could be harmful for health due to the changes in arousal associated with feeling stressed (Turner et al., 2020). Individuals higher in purpose tend to structure their lives to be more routine and predictable (Heintzelman & King, 2019), which may help to reduce the likelihood of experiencing stress (Bates et al., 2021). Such lower variability in stress may be one additional pathway through which purpose supports better health outcomes.

The present study addresses the within-, as well as between-, person associations between purpose in life and momentary stress in everyday life using a micro-longitudinal design. First, we examine the association between dispositional purpose in life measured with a standard questionnaire at baseline and the average and variability in stress in the moment reported three times a day for eight days. We expect that individuals with higher dispositional purpose will report less stress and have less variability in stress in daily life than individuals who are lower in dispositional purpose. Second, we examine within-person assessments of purpose and stress to address the association between momentary feelings of purpose and concurrent momentary feelings of stress. We expect that when individuals feel more purposeful in the moment than their average, they will feel less stressed. Third, we test whether dispositional purpose moderated the association between momentary purpose and stress. We do not have a specific hypothesis for moderation by dispositional purpose; we tested this cross-level interaction to further address the purpose-stress association.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Participants were from the Couples Healthy Aging Project (CHAP; Kekäläinen et al., 2023; Sutin et al., 2024a). CHAP is an ecological momentary assessment (EMA) study designed to examine factors related to health in everyday life. Participants were recruited into the study as couples. Eligibility criteria included being in a committed relationship for at least one year, being between the ages of 40 and 70, cohabitating, and both members of the couple had to agree to participate. There was no exclusion based on marital status or sexual orientation. The protocol was approved by the institutional review board and carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants provided informed consent before testing.

After eligibility screening, study staff interviewed each couple member separately. After the interview, participants completed an online survey through Qualtrics and then the EMA portion of the study. During the EMA, participants were alerted at three semi-random times throughout the day for eight days (approximately once each in the morning, afternoon, and early evening). These momentary assessments were completed on a study-provided Android phone. Participants were trained on the EMA portion of the study during their baseline interview before the start of the eight days of assessment. A total of 308 individuals enrolled in the study; 303 participants had data from the EMA assessment. Missing EMA data (n=5) was due to technical issues with retrieving data from the phones.

Measures

Dispositional purpose.

A 7-item version of the purpose in life subscale from the Ryff Measures of Psychological Well-being (Ryff, 1989) was included in the baseline survey. Items (e.g., “I have a sense of direction and purpose in my life.”) were rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), reverse scored when necessary, and the mean taken such that higher scores indicated higher purpose in life (alpha=.72).

Momentary purpose and stress.

Momentary purpose was measured with the item, “How PURPOSE-DRIVEN do you feel right now?” Momentary stress was measured with the item, “How STRESSED do you feel right now?” Participants responded to each item using a slider that ranged from 0 (not at all) to 100 (extremely). Momentary purpose correlated .34 [95% CI=.23, .43] with dispositional purpose, a correlation similar in magnitude to other constructs that correlate about .35 when measured in moment (within the last half hour) with their corresponding dispositional measure (Fleeson & Gallagher, 2009).

Covariates.

Sociodemographic covariates were age, sex (1=female, 0=male), race (1=person of color, 0=white), and education in years. Temporal and contextual covariates were day in the study when each assessment was completed (range 1-8), time window (1=morning, 2=mid-day, 3=afternoon), weekday (1=weekday, 0=weekend), location (1=work, 0=other location), and presence of other person(s) at the time of assessment (1=yes, 0=no).

Statistical Approach

To address whether dispositional purpose was associated with average stress and variability in stress in daily life, we took the mean and standard deviation across all momentary assessments of stress as measures of average momentary stress and variability in momentary stress, respectively. These two measures were each regressed on dispositional purpose, controlling for sociodemographic covariates. A second regression for variability further included the mean of momentary stress as an additional covariate. To address the association between momentary purpose and stress, we used multilevel modeling because measurement occasions (Level 1) were nested within individuals (Level 2). Each momentary assessment of purpose was person-mean centered (i.e., purpose_i – mean purpose_i) to reflect participants’ deviations from their mean level of purpose across assessments (i.e., higher or lower purpose than their average). Specifically, the participant’s mean of momentary purpose was taken across all assessments and subtracted from each momentary rating. The unadjusted model (Model 1) tested momentary purpose as a predictor of momentary stress:

$${\text{Stress}}_{\text{it}}={\text{b}}_0+{\text{b}}_1\text{Person-mean centered purpose}+{\text{b}}_2\text{Average momentary purpose}+\text{Random Effects + Error}$$

The fully adjusted model (Model 2) controlled for person (age, sex, race, education), temporal (study day, time window, weekday versus weekend day), and contextual (location, presence of others) factors:

$${\text{Stress}}_{\text{it}}={\text{b}}_0+{\text{b}}_1\text{Person-mean centered purpose}+{\text{b}}_2\text{Average momentary purpose},{\text{b}}_3\text{Age}+{\text{b}}_4\text{Sex}+{\text{b}}_5{\text{Education + b}}_6{\text{Study day + b}}_7\text{Time window}+{\text{b}}_8\text{Weekday versus weekend}+{\text{b}}_9\text{Location}+{\text{b}}_{10}\text{Presence of others + Random Effects + Error}$$

Both models allowed for a random intercept, and all continuous Level 2 (=individual) variables were grand mean-centered. A third level was tested to account for participants nested within couples. The results, however, were the same, so we report the two-level model for simplicity (see Supplemental Table S1 for results of this model). Finally, to address whether the momentary association between purpose and stress was moderated by dispositional purpose, we tested an interaction between dispositional purpose and momentary purpose on momentary stress. Analyses were run in SPSS version 29.

Results

Descriptive statistics for all study variables are in Table 1. The 303 participants provided 6,575 momentary assessments of purpose and stress across the eight days. Participants completed, on average 21.71 (SD=2.94) out of the 24 possible momentary assessments; 36% of participants (n=109) completed all 24 momentary assessments and 87% of participants (n=263) completed at least 80% of the momentary assessments. The between-person correlation between momentary purpose and momentary stress was −.19 (95% CI=−.30, −.08, p<.001). The within-person correlation between momentary purpose and momentary stress was −.03 (95% CI=−.05, −.01, p=.016). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was .35 for purpose and .38 for stress (between-person variability), which indicated sufficient within-person variability in both purpose (1–ICC=.65) and stress (1-ICC=.62) to examine their within-person, momentary association. Correlations between dispositional purpose and the mean and standard deviation of momentary purpose and stress are in Supplemental Material Table S2.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables at the Participant Level

Variable	M (SD) or % (n)
Age (years)	51.71 (7.32)
Sex (female)	54.5% (165)
Education (years)	16.59 (3.32)
Race (people of color)a	24.1% (73)
Purpose in life	4.21 (.59)
Momentary measuresb
Purpose	69.13 (15.79)
Stressed	23.62 (9.84)
Stressed Standard Deviation	20.11 (9.85)

Note. N=303.

^aParticipants self-identified as Black or African American (n=51), Hispanic or Latino (n=12), Asian (n=7), and/or American Indian or Alaska Native (n=6). Note participants could self-identify as more than one race/ethnicity.

^bMean and Standard Deviation calculated across momentary assessments.

As expected, there was a negative association between dispositional purpose and average momentary stress: Participants higher in purpose in life reported less stress in the moment averaged across all momentary assessments (β=−.29, 95% CI =−.39, -,18, p<.001). Dispositional purpose was related to less variability in momentary stress (β=−.12, 95% CI =−.22, −.01, p=.038), which was reduced to non-significance when mean stress was added as an additional covariate (β=.05, 95% CI =−.05, .14, p=.310). There was a correlation between variability in purpose and variability in stress (r=.38, 95% CI=.28, .47, p<.001).

Unexpectedly, there was a positive association between momentary purpose and stress (Table 2): In moments participants felt more purpose-driven than their average, they reported feeling more stressed. The association was apparent in both the unadjusted (b=.09, SE=.01, 95% CI=.06, .12, p<.001) and fully-adjusted (b=.05, SE=.01, 95% CI=.02, .08, p<.001) model. As a measure of effect size, one SD difference in purpose was associated with .07 SD and .04 SD difference in stress, respectively, for the unadjusted and fully-adjusted models. The association was the same when a slope component was also included in the model (b=.09, SE=.01, 95% CI=.06, .12, p<.001 for the unadjusted model and b=.05, SE=.01, 95% CI=.02, .08, p<.001 for the adjusted model). The momentary association held when dispositional purpose was included as an additional covariate (b=.05, SE=.01, 95% CI=.02, .08, p<.001). Similar to dispositional purpose, average momentary purpose was associated with less stress in the moment (b=−.19, SE=.06, 95% CI=−.31, −.06, p=.003). Together, these findings indicated that average momentary purpose is associated with feeling less stressed (i.e., participants who felt more purpose on average across the eight days felt less stress in moment), but in moments participants did feel more purpose-driven than their average, they felt more stressed. A supplemental analysis that used dynamic structure equation modeling in MPLUS 8.1 to test lagged associations between purpose and stress confirmed the positive concurrent association between momentary purpose and stress; there was no support for lagged associations in either direction (supplemental material).

Table 2.

Momentary Association between Purpose and Stress

Stress	Model 1				Model 2
	B	SE	95% CI	p	b	SE	95% CI	p
Intercept	23.58	1.03	21.56, 25.61	<.001	25.70	1.88	22.02, 29.38	<.001
Momentary Purpose	.09	.01	.06, .12	<.001	.05	.01	.02, .08	<.001
Average momentary purpose	−.22	.06	−.35, −.09	<.001	−.19	.06	−.31, −.06	.003
Age (years)					−.42	.14	−.69, −.14	.003
Sex (female)					2.97	2.00	−.97, 6.91	.139
Race (people of color)					−1.14	2.35	−5.76, 3.48	.628
Education (years)					.96	.30	.36, 1.55	.002
Day in the study					−.01	.12	−.25, .22	.931
Time window					1.46	.33	−2.11, −.81	<.001
Week day					−5.73	.66	−7.02, −4.44	<.001
Location (work)					8.53	.77	7.02, 10.04	<.001
With others					−1.82	.61	−3.02, −.62	.003
Variance Components
Residual	492.05	8.79	475.13, 509.58	<.001	464.20	8.29	448.23,480.73	<.001
Intercept	296.98	26.02	250.12, 352.61	<.001	272.31	23.91	229.27,323.44	<.001

Note. Level 1 continuous variables are person-mean centered. Level 2 continuous variables are grand mean centered. Day in the study (range 1-8), time window (1=morning, 2=mid-day, 3=afternoon), week day (weekday=0, weekend=1), with others (1=yes, 0=no), location (1=work, 0=other location).

Finally, the cross-level interaction between dispositional purpose and momentary purpose on stress was significant (b=−.04, SE=.02, 95% CI=−.08, −.01, p=.032): The momentary association between purpose and stress was significant among participants both higher and lower in dispositional purpose, but the association was stronger among participants with relatively lower purpose. This interaction did not replicate when tested with purpose averaged across the momentary assessments instead of dispositional purpose (b=.00, SE=.00, 95% CI=−.003, .001, p=.204).

Discussion

The present research used a micro-longitudinal design to extend the current literature on purpose and subjective stress by examining their association in daily life. Consistent with expectations, when measured between-person, as either dispositional or the average across all momentary assessments, higher purpose in life was associated with less momentary stress averaged across the eight days. Contrary to expectations, the within-person analysis indicated that in moments when participants felt more purpose-driven than their average, they felt more, not less, stress. This effect was relatively small, particularly in comparison to the between-person association. The interaction analysis indicated that this association was slightly stronger among individuals with relatively lower dispositional purpose.

Purpose in life is an aspect of eudaimonic well-being that, at the between-person level of analysis, is associated consistently with less subjective stress (Sutin et al., 2024b). Purpose tends to be unrelated to stressors measured in daily life, which suggests that individuals higher in purpose are not more or less likely to have experiences that are stressful (Hill et al., 2018), although this association varied during the pandemic (Hill et al., 2022). Rather, there is evidence from both daily diary studies and experimental work that indicates that purpose is associated with better regulation and recovery from stressors, which may stem from a homeostatic process that helps to maintain stability (Burrow et al., 2024). Individuals higher in purpose, for example, have fewer physical symptoms and increase less in negative affect on days with stressors than individuals lower in purpose (Hill et al., 2018). When stress is manipulated in the lab, purpose tends to be unrelated to the initial response to the stressor, but it is associated with faster recovery from it (Fogelman & Canli, 2015; Schaefer et al., 2013). Purpose is likewise associated with healthier coping strategies (e.g., problem-focused coping) that may help to effectively manage stressors (Lohani et al., 2023; Pfund et al., 2023). This better regulation may contribute to the lower general feelings of subjective stress. The present research is consistent with this literature on purpose and subjective stress. Dispositional purpose was associated with feeling less stress on average across the eight days. With the current data it was not possible to determine whether individuals higher in purpose experienced fewer stressors, had better regulation when stressors did occur, or both.

Although purpose in life has generally been operationalized as a relatively dispositional characteristic, recent empirical work has demonstrated that purpose also fluctuates over short periods of time, such as month-to-month and day-to-day (Pfund et al., 2022; Pfund, DeLongis, et al., 2022). The present study likewise found significant within-person variability in purpose at the momentary level. Surprisingly, this momentary variability from the mean was associated with feeling more rather than less stress in the moment. That is, when individuals felt more purpose-driven than their average, they reported feeling more stressed. Although counterintuitive, given the typical negative association found at the between-person level, there may be reasons for this positive momentary association. Pursuing something purposeful, for example, may be stressful in the moment. Individuals higher in purpose are driven to pursue their meaningful goals (Martela & Steger, 2016), and goals can be difficult to achieve and be strenuous in their pursuit (Brandstätter & Bernecker, 2022). Perhaps in moments when individuals engage in something that makes them feel purpose driven, it also puts them under strain. It is also possible that not all stress is harmful, and that stress can be adaptive. That is, when in pursuit of a long-term goal, momentary feelings of stress may be manageable and at times unavoidable depending on the goal. For example, working under deadline for a job can be stressful, but good performance at work may have long-term benefits and help fulfill goals that increase a sense of purpose. Stress measured in the moment may also be acute, which could be less harmful than when stress is chronic (Epel et al., 2018).

The present research adds to the growing evidence for the utility of distinguishing more temporary feelings of purpose from dispositional feelings of purpose. That is, purpose can be conceptualized both as an enduring direction of one’s life and as a momentary instance of feeling purposeful (Hill et al., 2023). This distinction appears to have implications for stress and well-being. Dispositional purpose may help avoid stressors, manage stress through regular routines, and better regulate stressors when they do occur. The moment of feeling more purposeful, perhaps through engagement in meaningful activities, is also stressful, perhaps due to the mechanisms described above. Hill and colleagues (Hill et al., 2022), have likewise found counterintuitive associations, specifically that positive affect decreased more on days with stressors among individuals higher in purpose than lower in purpose. Although an acute effect in the short-term, the homeostatic process hypothesized to underlie purpose may help better manage affective responses in the longer term (Burrow et al., 2024). Purpose and stress need to be measured at multiple levels to better address the dynamics to explain how purpose operates in the moment and how these dynamics may or may not contribute to associations with important factors, such as stress, at the more dispositional level.

The present research is also consistent with growing evidence that fluctuations in purpose are associated with emotional and social well-being. Previous research has found, for example, that daily fluctuations in purpose are associated with more fluctuations in positive affect than negative affect (Pfund et al., 2024) and healthier social interactions during the day (Pfund, Hofer, et al., 2022). Further, for individuals with generalized anxiety disorder, expending effort and making progress toward a purposeful striving in daily life is associated with more self-esteem and feelings of meaning than on days with less effort and progress (Kashdan & McKnight, 2013). The present research adds that dispositional purpose is associated with less variability in stress, but also that more fluctuations in purpose across moments is associated with greater fluctuations in stress.

The positive association between momentary purpose and stress was moderated by dispositional purpose. That is, feeling purpose driven was associated with feeling more stress in the moment for participants either higher or lower in dispositional purpose, but the association was slightly stronger among those with relatively lower dispositional purpose. A general tendency toward purpose may lessen the association with stress because feeling purpose-driven in the moment may be a more common experience than a lower general tendency toward purpose. Individuals lower in purpose may engage in fewer activities that are purposeful, and thus when they do engage in such activities, it is more stressful. There might also be some amount of arousal that accounts for both feeling purpose-driven and stressed (i.e., a physiological activation that may be interpreted as purpose and/or stress); such coupling might be stronger for those who do not see themselves as purposeful. It is critical to test whether this surprising finding replicates before evaluating potential explanations.

This research had several strengths, including momentary assessments of purpose and stress, the relatively large sample of middle-aged and older adults, and the fairly high EMA response rate. The study also had limitations. First, no information was collected on the nature of the stress in the moment; participants reported feeling stressed, but not its cause or how it was regulated. Second, the sample was primarily on middle-aged adults because middle age is a critical period for outcomes in older adulthood. Finally, the sample was limited to one geographic area. Future work could address specific stressors and their regulation in the moment and include other age groups and populations to evaluate generalizability. Despite these limitations, the present research sheds light on the between- and within-person association of purpose and stress in everyday life.

Data availability:

Data and analytic script are available at https://osf.io/fm2ac/?view_only=d27c63cc6e36429ca32e04cdcfcc3a01.