Article

Examining Social Class and Work

Meaning Within the Psychology
of Working Framework

Journal of Career Assessment

2014, Vol. 22(4) 543-561
The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1069072713514811
jca.sagepub.com

Blake A. Allan1, Kelsey L. Autin1, and Ryan D. Duffy1

Abstract
In this article, we used the psychology of working framework to examine how social class relates to
the experience of meaningful work with two samples of working adults. In Study 1, participants in
higher social classes were more likely to experience work meaning than people in lower social
classes. Regardless of class, participants reported serving others or contributing to the greater good
as the primary source of their works meaning. In Study 2, we used a latent, multiple mediator model
to test whether the three components of work volition mediated the relation between social class
and work meaning. The model was a good fit to the data and partially supported our hypotheses.
Specifically, volition and financial constraints fully mediated the relation between social class and
work meaning, suggesting that social class may be linked to work meaning due to increased volition
and decreased financial constraints.
Keywords
work meaning, social class, socioeconomic status, work volition, psychology of working

Scholars within the fields of industrial/organizational psychology and counseling psychology have
increasingly turned their attention to meaningfulness in the workplace (Dik, Duffy, & Eldridge,
2009; Pratt & Ashforth, 2003; Steger, Dik, & Duffy, 2012). The majority of this research has
revealed work meaning to be an important correlate of work and well-being outcomes, such as organizational commitment, job satisfaction, life meaning, and life satisfaction (see Steger et al., 2012,
for a review). Although this research has expanded our understanding of the importance of experiencing meaningful work, most of these studies have tended to focus on middle- to upper-middleclass individuals with relative power and privilege, thereby limiting the understanding of meaningful
work as it applies to individuals from lower social class backgrounds (Blustein, 2001; Blustein,
Kenna, Gill, & Devoy, 2008). The aim of the two current studies is to extend the work meaning
literature by exploring whether or not social class relates to both the amount of meaningfulness
workers experience and the sources from which workers obtain meaningfulness. Additionally,

Department of Psychology, The University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Corresponding Author:
Blake A. Allan, Department of Psychology, University of Florida, PO Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
Email: ballan3@ufl.edu

543

544

Journal of Career Assessment 22(4)

following from Blustein, Kenna, Gill, and Devoys (2008) psychology of working framework
(PWF), we aim to examine whether perceptions of control in career decision making explain the
relation between social class and work meaning.

Theoretical Background
The PWF was founded on the observation that most vocational research from the past century is
based on samples of middle-class, college-educated adults and therefore may only be applicable
to a privileged subset of the global population (Blustein, 2001, 2006). In the PWF, Blustein and
colleagues (2008) called for vocational psychologists to engage in research that includes individuals
who lack resources and access to opportunity structures, such as higher education. Central to this is
the concept of work volition, defined as the extent to which individuals feel that they have choice in
their occupational lives (Blustein, 2001; Duffy, Diemer, Perry, Laurenzi, & Torrey, 2012b). Blustein
(2001) asserted that by consistently conceptualizing the traditional career path as one in which an
individual has access to occupational and educational resources that allow for career choice based
on personal preference, vocational psychology is ignoring a vast number of individuals who do not
experience choice in their work lives.
The PWF recognizes that work can fulfill three basic human needs, survival and power, social
connectedness, and self-determination, and evidence largely supports this claim (Blustein et al.,
2008; Deci & Ryan, 2001; Fernet, Gagne, & Austin, 2010; Kalleberg, 1977; McNeese-Smith,
1999). Survival needs, at the basic level, encompass things that one needs to ensure physical safety
and security; that is, food, clothing, shelter, and so on. As societies become more complex, resources
become less tangible in forms such as education, status, and prestige, all of which lead to greater
access to these material resources. Work provides an avenue to accrue these symbolic resources
as well as material wealth. Therefore, working allows one to not only meet needs for physical survival but also for psychological power (Blustein, 2006). Working may also meet needs for social
connectedness on several different levels. Perhaps most intuitive is the provision of lasting and
meaningful bonds with others (e.g., coworkers, supervisors, and beneficiaries) at work. In a broader
sense, working can act as a means to connect people to the greater society, economy, and political
structure by providing a way to contribute to their community (Blustein, 2006). The PWF promotes
the importance of viewing work holistically, in the context of an individuals larger world and external influences on working; family life, in particular, is a relational factor that may have a large
impact on career development and is deeply interwoven with issues of volition.
Finally, Blustein (2006) proposes that work provides an avenue in which self-determination
needs can be met. Drawing upon self determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), Blustein (2006)
notes that self-determined work is intrinsically motivating, acting as a form of expression of ones
authentic identity. In addition to variables outlined by Deci and Ryan (2000; autonomy, competence,
and relatedness), Blustein (2006) proposed that in order for extrinsically motivating work to be internalized, it is important that there is (a) value congruence, in which an individuals core values align
with those of the organization they are working for and (b) access to the opportunity structure, or
resources such as education, social support, safe and adequate housing, and financial support.
Access to the opportunity structure may be especially relevant to individuals of lower class backgrounds, who might lack access to these resources that increase the likelihood of finding work that
is rewarding and meaningful (Blustein, 2006) and therefore meeting needs for self-determination.

Work Meaning
What is meaningful work? Different scholars have considered this question and have offered conflicting definitions and conceptualizations. For example, the terms meaning and meaningfulness are
544

Allan et al.

545

often used interchangeably, even though some scholars differentiate between the two (see Pratt &
Ashforth, 2003). For the purposes of this study, we will use Steger, Dik, and Duffys (2012)
definition of work meaning: The subjective experience that ones work has significance, facilitates personal growth, and contributes to the greater good and will use the terms meaning and
meaningfulness interchangeably.
Experiencing work as meaningful has been positively linked to a host of work and well-being
constructs. For example, people who say their work is meaningful report greater life satisfaction and
life meaning and lower levels of anxiety, hostility, and depression (Steger et al., 2012). Work meaning is also predictive of positive work-related variables such as higher job performance and productivity (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Grant, 2008), greater career and organizational commitment
(Duffy, Bott, Allan, & Torrey, 2013), more intrinsic work motivation (Steger et al., 2012), sacrifice
of time and pay for careers, and the tendency hold organizations to a higher standard (Bunderson &
Thompson, 2009). Finally, experiencing meaning at work has been linked with lower withdrawal
intentions and rates of absenteeism (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Steger et al., 2012), higher job
satisfaction, and perceiving ones job as a calling (Duffy, Bott, Allan, Torrey, & Dik, 2012a). In
short, work meaning appears to be important correlate of both personal well-being and
job-related outcomes.

Sources of Work Meaning

Several researchers have also attempted to identify the sources of work meaning. Rosso, Dekas, and
Wrzesniewski (2010) attempted to synthesize the literature on sources of work meaning by categorizing sources into four pathways to work meaning: individuation, contribution, self-connection, and
unification. The self-connection pathway (self/communion intersection) leads to meaningful work
because it involves an individual feeling aligned and engaged with her or his identity. Individuation
(self/agency intersection) involves drawing meaningfulness from establishing the self as a valuable,
autonomous individual. Unification (other/communion intersection) entails communion and harmony with others, with belongingness playing a central role. Finally, contribution (other/agency)
refers to the extent to which one perceives that she or he is making a significant impact on others.
In summary, experiencing work as meaningful may arise from performing work that is aligned with
ones personal identity, helps one feel valuable, involves harmony with others, and contributes to the
common good.

Work Meaning and Social Class

Social class is broadly defined as peoples relative position in societys economic and cultural
hierarchy (Diemer, Mistry, Wadsworth, Lopez, & Reimers, 2012). However, it also reflects the
power, influence, and control over resources that this rank affords (Diemer et al., 2012). Generally,
social class is operationalized in two ways. First, some research assesses individuals perceptions of
their status in society, termed subjective social status (SSS). SSS is often assessed with categorical or
continuous scales in which participants place themselves on the social class spectrum. This approach
better measures peoples subjectively experienced social class as well as classism or social class
expectations (Liu et al., 2004). Second, social class is measured with objective measures, usually
referred to as socioeconomic status (SES), which consists of family income or wealth, occupational
prestige, and level of education (Diemer et al., 2012; Nakao & Treas, 1994). The theoretical framework of the PWF and several lines of research suggest that social classes may differ in both the
amount of work meaning they experience and how they experience work meaning. As discussed
previously, not everyone has access to higher levels of education and advantageous vocational
opportunities that may lead to occupations allowing for higher levels of self-expression, self545

546

Journal of Career Assessment 22(4)

determination, and satisfying relationships with others and, in turn, increased meaningfulness
(Blustein et. al., 2008).
Previous research by Hackman and colleagues (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman & Oldham,
1975) supports this notion. They assert that five primary job characteristics (task significance, task
identity, skill variety, autonomy, and feedback from the job) influence psychological states, one of
which is experienced meaningfulness (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman
& Oldham, 1975). They describe jobs that encompass these characteristics as enriched and propose that occupations that include these qualities serve to fulfill higher order needs (Hackman &
Oldham, 1975). More recent research demonstrated support for this model (DeVaro & Robert,
2007) and extended the findings by showing meaningfulness to be a key mediator between these
job characteristics and positive work outcomes (Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007). Lowand high-status jobs may differ in the extent to which they offer enrichment; although there is
evidence that suggests low-wage workers may show resilience in the face of barriers to enrichment
(Stacey, 2005). However, the structure of many low-status occupations may impede factors such
as autonomy and skill development and thus enrichment at work. For example, in a study on perceived dignity in low-wage hospital workers, researchers found that factors such as poor pay and
excessive physical demand impeded potential benefits of work redesign (Berg & Frost, 2005).
Additional support that the amount of work meaning may differ between those of low and high
social class is found in the relation of income and education to the experience of a career calling, a
summons to a prosocial occupation that is personally meaningful. Duffy and colleagues (Duffy,
Allan, Autin, & Bott, 2013; Duffy & Autin, 2013) found that individuals with lower levels of income
and education did not differ in the extent to which they perceived a calling but that those with high
income and educational attainment were more likely to actually live out their calling. In short, both
the PWF and empirical research suggest that those in higher social classes may be more likely to
experience work meaning than those in lower social classes.

Work Volition
The question remains as to how social class might link to work meaning, and work volition is a
possible mediating variable. Work volition is broadly defined as the perception of choice in ones
career despite external barriers and consists of three components: (a) volition, (b) financial constraints, and (c) structural constraints. Work volition has been strongly linked with job satisfaction
(Duffy, Bott, Torrey, & Webster, 2013; Duffy, Diemer, et al., 2012b) and moderately linked with life
satisfaction (Duffy, Bott, Allan, & Torrey, 2013). Although there is little empirical research looking
directly at work volitions relation to work meaning and social class, multiple studies have explored
closely related constructs to each of the three components.
Volition. Volition refers to the perceived capacity to make occupational choices (Duffy, Diemer,
et al., 2012b). Like variables such as internal locus of control, this variable reflects aspects of choice,
control, and engaging in a vocational behavior in accordance with free will rather than out of pressure or force (Reeve, Hamm, & Nix, 2003). In a study examining self-determination, intrinsic motivation, and volition, Reeve, Hamm, and Nix (2003) found a sense of volition was central to the
experience of intrinsic motivation, which has been in turn linked to greater meaningfulness (see
Rosso, Dekas, & Wrzesniewski, 2010). Feeling a general sense of volition in ones occupational
choices may be a key ingredient to choosing meaningful jobs and experiencing meaning while in
those jobs.
Financial Constraints. Financial constraints refers to the perceived impact of financial factors on ones
ability to make occupational choices (Duffy, Diemer, et al., 2012b). Financial concerns may be one
546

Allan et al.

547

of the heaviest burdens on individuals of lower social classes. As illustrated in a qualitative study
examining the role of social class in school to work transition, young adults of high SES reported
a diverse array of reasons for pursuing work (e.g., personal meaning and satisfaction) and expressed
their self-concept through working, whereas students of low SES identified one primary reason for
working: financial reward (Blustein et al., 2002). This is consistent with the finding from Brief,
Konovsky, Goodwin, and Link (1995) that individuals of lower social class viewed the financial
rewards of work as more meaningful than those of higher social class. One of the reasons why those
from lower social classes experience less work meaning may be because of a lack of work volition
due to financial constraints in choosing desired occupations.
Structural Constraints. Structural constraints are the perceived impact of external factors on ones ability to make occupational choices (Duffy, Diemer et al., 2012b). Structural constraints to choice may
include barriers such as economic recession, oppression, and marginalization (Duffy, Diemer et al.,
2012b). Several studies (Parham & Helms, 1985; Schaafsma, 2011; Smith, Caputi, & Crittenden,
2012) have looked at structural barriers to obtaining employment as they relate to higher order
needs. In a meta-analysis of focusing on the work lives of refugees, Mpofu, Stevens, Biggs, and
Johnson (2012) noted several structural barriers that prevented individuals in this population
from extracting meaningfulness from their careers. Additionally, feelings of inferiority and resignation due to racial and gender discrimination have been linked to lower self-actualizing tendencies (Parham & Helms, 1985; Smith et al., 2012). One of the reasons that those from lower
social classes experience less work meaning may be due to structural constraints in choosing
desired occupations.

The Present Study

The goals of the current studies were to (a) examine differences in social class in the experience and
sources of work meaning and (b) test whether the three components of work volitionvolition,
financial constraints, and structural constraintsexplain the relation between social class and work
meaning. In Study 1, with a sample of working adults, we investigated whether there were differences in the amount of work meaning experienced by different social classes. In this study, we used
subjective (SSS) and objective measures (SES) of social class. Drawing from numerous previous
studies (e.g., Blustein et al., 2008; Duffy & Autin, 2013; Duffy et al., 2012), we hypothesized that
people in higher social classes would have significantly higher work meaning than those in lower
social classes (Hypothesis 1). Study 1 was also designed to test whether people from different social
classes cited different sources of their works meaning. Also based on several empirical studies
(Blustein et al., 2002; Brief, Konovsky, Goodwin, & Link, 1995; Rosso et al., 2010) and the theoretical propositions of Blustein et al. (2008), we hypothesized that people in lower social classes
would report more themes related to survival than those in higher social classes, who would report
more themes related to higher order psychological needs (Hypothesis 2).
In Study 2, with a new sample of working adults, we sought to replicate findings from Study 1 and
also test the degree to which the three components of work volition mediated the relation of social
class to work meaning. This was completed using structural equation modeling with latent
constructs developed for the five core variables (social class, volition, financial constraints, structural constraints, and work meaning), and mediation was tested using bootstrapping techniques.
This study employed an SES operationalization of social class to replicate and extend the findings
from Study 1. Drawing from previous research (Brief et al., 1995; Mpofu, Stevens, Biggs, & Johnson,
2012; Reeve et al., 2003) and theoretical propositions (Blustein et al., 2008), we hypothesized that
volition, financial constraints, and structural constraints would significantly and fully mediate the link
between social class and work meaning (Hypothesis 3; see Figure 1).
547

548

Journal of Career Assessment 22(4)

.20*

Social
Class

Volition

.53* (.08*)

-.36*

Financial
Constraints

-.30*
(.08*)

-.23*

Structural
Constraints

.08 (-.01)

.05 (.15*)

Work
Meaning

Figure 1. Final latent structural model with social class predicting work meaning via the three work volition
subscales. Direct effects are standardized. Indirect effects are in parentheses. Direct effect from Social Class to
Work Meaning is after accounting for the mediators. *p < .05.

Study 1
Method
Participants. Participants were 351 employed adults. Of this group, 214 identified as female (61%),
133 as male (38%), and 4 as transgender or gender-queer (1%). Additionally, 288 (82%) of the participants identified as White, 20 (6%) as African American, 20 (6%) as Asian/Asian American, 12
(3%) as Hispanic/Latina/Latino American, and 11 (3%) as Multiracial. The ages of participants ranged from 18 to 80 years, with a mean age of 35.74 (standard deviation [SD] 11.64). Income ranged
from US$1,500/year to US$250,000/year with a mean of US$48,660.47 (SD $33,917.85). However, a large proportion of participants (N 121) did not provide their income. In terms of class, 32
(9%) of participants were identified as lower class, 147 (42%) as working class, 147 (42%) as middle
class, and 25 (7%) as upper-middle class/upper class. In terms of highest level of education achieved,
6 (2%) had some high school or less, 33 (9%) had high school diplomas, 21 (6%) had vocational
school diplomas, 108 (31%) had some college, 140 (40%) had college degrees, and 43 (12%) had
professional or advanced degrees. In total, 243 (69%) of participants worked full-time and 108
(31%) worked part-time.

Instruments
Social Class. As discussed previously, social class can be measured with both subjective (i.e., people
rating their own social class) and objective (i.e., based on income, level of education, and occupational prestige) measures. For this study, both subjective and objective measures were used. The
subjective measure consisted of a 5-point scale including the categories of lower class, working
class, middle class, upper-middle class, and upper class. Given that only a few participants
selected upper class, this category was merged with upper-middle class. Following from previous
research (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002; Cohen, Doyle, & Baum, 2006; Janicki-Deverts et al., 2007),
548

Allan et al.

549

our objective measure combined the z-transformed income, education, and occupational prestige
scores for each participant (Nakao & Treas, 1994). Income was assessed with the single question,
What was your total household income in 2011? Level of education was also assessed with the
single question, What is your highest degree obtained? Participants answered this question on a
7-point scale ranging from Less than high school to Professional degree (e.g., MBA, MS, PhD).
Participants also reported their occupations with a response to the question, What is your job
title? Please be specific. To obtain a measure occupational prestige from participants occupations, we used Nakao and Treass (1994) occupational prestige scale. This scale was constructed
from data from the 1989 General Social Survey by having participants rank the prestige value of
over 700 occupations. The scale assigns a numerical value ranging from 0 to 100 to each occupation, with higher values indicating higher prestige. Nakao and Treas (1994) found the scale to
correlate highly with other measures of prestige and SES. Although this measure is somewhat
dated, it is still one the most modern classifications of occupational prestige, which allowed us
to create an objective measure of social class (Diemer et al., 2012). For the present study, a
research assistant coded the occupations provided by participants on the basis of this scale.
Income, level of education, and occupational prestige were z-transformed and summed to create
the objective social class variable.
Work Meaning. The degree to which participants perceived their work as meaningful was measured
with the Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI; Steger et al., 2012). The WAMI is a 10-item
questionnaire measured on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree.
Sample items include I have found a meaningful career and The work I do serves a greater purpose. Steger et al. (2012) found the scale to have an estimated internal consistency of a .93. The
WAMIs subscales loaded on a higher order factor, which had good indices of fit. It also correlated
in the expected directions with measures of calling, career commitment, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, intrinsic work motivation, life satisfaction, and meaning in life. The estimated
internal consistency of scale scores in the present study was a .96.
Source of Work Meaning. To assess the reasons why participants perceived their work as meaningful,
we first presented participants with the following paragraph after completing the WAMI: You just
completed a questionnaire about the meaningfulness of your work. Some people consider their work
to have some degree of purpose, significance, or importance above and beyond earning a paycheck.
However, different people identify different reasons why their work is meaningful. We want to know
what makes your work meaningful. Participants then completed the following free response
question: Please think carefully about the following question: Do you believe that your work is
meaningful? If yes, what makes it meaningful?

Procedure
Data for this study were collected through the online data collection service Mechanical Turk
(MTurk). MTurk is a website that allows people to take surveys for monetary rewards. The goal
in using MTurk was to collect a sample of working adults who were demographically, geographically, and occupationally diverse. Recent reviews and studies examining MTurk have largely concluded that it produces valid data that are comparable to laboratory and other Internet recruitment
methods; however, samples from MTurk tend to be more diverse (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling,
2011; Sprouse, 2011). People typically report enjoyment as the major reason they use MTurk, rather
than for remuneration (Buhrmester et al., 2011). A link including an informed consent document and
the survey itself was posted on MTurk and in order to participate, participants had to (a) be over the
age of 18, (b) reside within the United States, and (c) be employed at least part-time. Participants
549

550

Journal of Career Assessment 22(4)

were given US30 for taking part in the study. Within the survey, 3 items were inserted that asked
participants to select a specific answer in order to ensure the validity of the data. The original sample
consisted of 457 people. From this, we removed people who were unemployed or students and those
who failed to select the 3 validity check items. This resulted in the final sample of 351 participants.
Only eight participants failed to have complete data. We deleted these data listwise.

Results
Work Meaning and Social Class. The first goal of this study was to determine whether work meaning
was related to social class. WAMI scores were slightly negatively skewed, but absolute scores of
skewness and kurtosis were less than 1. Therefore, we did not transform WAMI scores. The social
class composite score was also normally distributed.
The social class composite score had a weak to moderate, positive correlation with work meaning
(r .16, p < .05). A nonparametric, Spearman correlation between the categorical social class variables and work meaning yielded the same result (r .16, p < .01). Therefore, we conducted a oneway analysis of variance with a series of planned contrasts to compare work meaning among our
categorical social class groups. We chose planned contrasts to maintain power while minimizing the
inflation of family-wise error and because of the hypothesiss directionality (Field, 2009). Planned
comparisons consisted of three subsequent tests: the lower class group to the three higher class
groups; the working-class group to the middle class and upper-middle/upper-class groups; and
the middle-class group to the upper-middle/upper class group. The omnibus F-test was significant,
F(3, 339) 2.92, p < .05, so we proceeded with the contrasts. The F-test for homogeneity of variance was not significant, F(3, 339) 1.74, ns, so we assumed equal variances between groups. The
means and SDs of the four social class groups were as follows: lower (M 42.94, SD 16.30),
working (M 45.33, SD 15.74), middle (M 48.50, SD 16.07), and upper middle (M 53.17,
SD 11.48). The first planned contrast showed a significant difference in work meaning between
the lower class group and all higher class groups, t(339) 1.97, p < .05. The second planned contrast
showed a significant difference between the working-class group and the two higher class groups,
t(339) 2.54, p < .05. However, the third planned contrast did not find a significant difference
between the middle class and upper-middle class/upper class group, t(339) 1.48, ns.
Source of Meaning. To analyze participants responses to our single open-ended question about why
their work was meaningful, we used conventional content analysis. Conventional content analysis
does not use prior theory to guide coding and allows categories to arise from the text (Hsieh &
Shannon, 2005). As opposed to grounded theory method or consensual qualitative research, which
aim to understand participants phenomenological experiences, conventional content analysis
only leads to concept building and categorization of answers (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). To begin,
the first author and second author, each doctoral students in a counseling psychology program,
independently examined the responses. This process involved attempting to understand the core
source or sources of participants meaningful work and creating appropriate categories. The first
and second authors then independently reviewed each others work and noted conflicts with his or
her proposed categorization. The authors then met to discuss and resolve these conflicts. Afterward, the third author, an assistant professor in a counseling psychology program with expertise
in qualitative analysis, reviewed and audited the categories created by the first and second authors
for accuracy and agreement.
In total, 71% (N 248) of the sample said that their work was meaningful. For the participants
who indicated their work was meaningful, 92% (N 229) identified one primary reason their work
was meaningful, 6% (N 14) identified two primary reasons, 2% (N 4) identified three primary
reasons, and 1 participant failed to answer the question. Content analysis yielded eight broad
550

Allan et al.

551

Table 1. Categories of Meaning Source by Social Class.

Source Category
Class group
Lower
Working
Middle
Upper middle
Total

Greater good
0%
14%
13%
20%
13%

(0)
(14)
(14)
(4)
(32)

Help others
82%
62%
71%
45%
66%

(14)
(63)
(77)
(9)
(163)

Personal
6% (1)
3% (3)
1% (1)
5% (1)
2% (6)

Knowledge
0%
1%
5%
0%
2%

(0)
(1)
(5)
(0)
(6)

Mixed
0%
9%
6%
15%
9%

(0)
(9)
(7)
(3)
(22)

Misc
12% (2)
8% (8)
5% (5)
15% (3)
7% (18)

categories. The largest category was helping others, which 70% (N 173) of the subsample
endorsed. This category encompassed answers that referred to helping others on an individual level,
often directly. Only three responses in this category referenced family, so this largely reflected helping nonfamilial people. For example, a web designer wrote, [My work] helps people create their
own personal space on the web and share it with the world, and a systems engineer wrote,
[My work] can have a direct impact on warfighters and save lives.
The next largest category was contributing to the greater good, which was reflected in 16%
(N 39) of responses. In contrast to helping others individually, this category reflected helping
organizations of people, such as ones country, community, or company. In these responses, people
did not reference other people specifically but instead cited organizations that are made up of people.
For example, a receptionist said, Without me, the office would be in a shambles. Being a receptionist is not the most revered job, but it is important, and a senior consultant reported, My work
contributes to the flow of the nations economy, which has vast implications on the entire country.
The third largest category was personal growth and enjoyment, which emerged in 7% (N 18) of
the answers. In this category, people wrote about how their work was meaningful because of
personal benefits they gained, such as self-determination, maximizing their potential, work enjoyment, a sense of purpose, and intellectual growth. A data and graphics administrator described this
category well: I believe that my job has given me some sense of direction, has provided a great
deal of motivation and impetus for moving forward in career opportunities, and has facilitated
intellectual growth and harnessing of skills. The remaining categories included generating or
preserving knowledge (5%; N 12), making money (2%; N 5), forming relationships at work
(2%; N 4), capturing or creating beauty (2%; N 4), and unclassifiable (2%; N 5).
Source of Work Meaning and Class. As seen in Table 1, the vast majority of responses fell in the helping others category, there were relatively few participants in the lower and upper-middle class/upper
classes (N 32 and N 25 respectively), and several peoples answers included multiple sources.
Therefore, there were less than five expected cases in many cells, making a w2 test of independence
untenable (Field, 2009). However, Table 1 clearly shows that, regardless of social class, the vast
majority of responses fall into the helping others or contributing to the greater good categories.

Discussion
The goals of Study 1 were to examine whether people in different social classes reported different
levels of work meaning and whether people from different classes cited different sources of their
works meaning. Supporting our hypothesis and consistent with the PWF, people from the lower and
working-class groups reported lower work meaning than higher class groups, with work meaning
averages getting progressively larger with each class group. This is consistent with previous studies
that have found meaningful work to differ based on level of education and income (Duffy, Allan,
551

552

Journal of Career Assessment 22(4)

et al., 2013). It also suggests that something about being in a lower social class may hinder people
from viewing their work as meaningful.
Contrary to our hypothesis, the sources of work meaning among the different social classes did
not seem to differ. However, the classification of sources used in our study did not result in enough
different categories to statistically test differences among class groups. Regardless, this seems to
be because the vast majority participants cited helping others or contributing to the greater good as
the source of their works meaning. Drawing conclusions from this result should be tentative, since
we did not use a statistical test, but this preliminary result suggests that although social classes
differ in how much meaning they perceive in their work, they may not differ in what leads to their
meaningful work.
Our results suggest that, across different social class groups, prosocial impact seems to be the
primary source of work meaning. This is the first study to qualitatively explore the sources of
peoples work meaning, and better studies are needed to understand peoples rich experiences. However, this initial result supports theories of work meaning and empirical research that place prosocial
impact in a central role (Grant, 2007; Grant, 2008; Rosso et al., 2010). Using Rosso et al.s (2010)
theoretical framework, the contribution quadrant reflects actions that are perceived as meaningful
when they are done in service of something beyond the self. The results of our study support the
notion that people derive work meaning primarily from this pathway.
In sum, although Study 1 revealed different amounts of work meaning between different social
class groups, the sources of work meaning among classes did not help explain why these differences
exist. Following from the PWF, differences in work volition may be a possible reason why social
class is related to work meaning. Furthermore, the categorical self-report of social class was limited
in Study 1 because it subjectively rather than objectively assessed social class, did not actively
include variables like education and income, and lost information based on the categorical representation of data. Therefore, we designed Study 2 to address these concerns and test work volition as a
potential mediator.

Study 2
Method
Participants. The sample consisted of 252 participants with ages ranging from 18 to 81 (M 33.74,
SD 12.95); 49% (N 124) were male and 51% (N 128) were female. In total, 83% (N 209)
identified as White, 6% (N 15) as Asian/Asian American, 4% (N 11) as multiracial, 2% (N 5)
as African American, 2% (N 5) as Mexican American, 1% (N 3) as Central American, .4%
(N 1) as Puerto Rican, .4% (N 1) as Pacific Islander, .4% (N 1) as Middle Eastern, and
.4% (N 1) as American Indian. In terms of income, 31% (N 77) made less than US$25,000 per
year, 43% (N 108) made US$26,000$50,000 per year, 16% (N 40) made US$51,000$75,000
per year, 5% (N 13) made $76,000$100,000 per year, 2% (N 6) made US$101,000$125,000 per
year, 2% (N 5) made US$126,000$150,000 per year, and 1% (N 3) made over US$151,000
per year. In terms of highest level of education achieved, 9% (N 23) had a high school diploma,
1% (N 3) attended vocational school, 28% (N 71) had some college, 43% (N 109) had a college
degree, and 18% (N 46) had attended graduate or professional school. Of the sample, 71% (N 180)
were employed full-time and 29% (N 72) were employed part-time.

Instruments
Work Meaning. As in Study 1, we used the WAMI (Steger et al., 2012) to measure working meaning.
For this study, the estimated internal consistencies for scores from the three WAMI subscales were
552

Allan et al.

553

Positive Meaning (a .88), Meaning-Making (a .85), and Greater Good Motivation (a .85).
The estimated internal consistency of scale scores for the entire scale was a .95.
Work Volition. The degree to which individuals felt choice in their work lives despite constraints was
measured with the Work Volition Scale (WVS; Duffy, Diemer et al., 2012b), which is a scale developed directly within a PWF framework. The scale is measured with 13 items on a 7-point Likert-type
scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The measure is divided into three subscales:
volition (5 items), financial constraints (5 items), and structural constraints (4 items). The volition subscale measures peoples perceived level of ability to make vocational choices. A sample item is, I feel
total control over my job choices. The financial constraints measures restrictions on choice based on
finances. A sample item is, Due to my financial situation, I need to take any job I can find. Finally,
the structural constraints subscale measures restrictions on choice due to external forces, like the
economy. A sample item is, Negative factors outside my personal control had a large impact on
my current career choice. Higher scores are associated with higher volition, financial constraints, and
structural constraints. Duffy, Diemer, Perry, Laurenzi, and Torrey (2012b) found the WVS to load
appropriately onto these three factors and to correlate positively with work locus of control and job
satisfaction and negatively with discrimination and career barriers. They found internal consistencies
of a .78 (volition), a .81 (financial constraints), and a .70 (structural constraints) for the three
subscales. The estimated internal consistency reliabilities for scale scores in this study were a .80
(volition), a .83 (financial constraints), and a .78 (structural constraints).

Social Class
Social class was measured in the same way as the objective measure in Study 2. Occupations were
coded using Nakao and Treass (1994) occupational prestige scale. Education was measured with a
single item (What is your highest level of education completed?) on a 7-point scale ranging from
Grade school to Graduate/professional school. Income was measured with a single item (On average, what is your annual personal income?) on a 9-point scale ranging from Less than $25,000 per
year to $200,000 per year. These three variables were combined to form the latent social class
variable.

Procedure
Like Study 1, Study 2 used MTurk to recruit participants. A link to the informed consent and the full
survey was posted on MTurk, and participants were compensated US50 for joining the study.
Although this was more than the first study, research suggests that the amount of monetary reward
on Mechanical Turk only affects the rate of data collection, not the quality of the data (Buhrmester
et al., 2011). Again, we included three validity check items that asked participants to select a specified answer. An initial sample of 329 participants completed the survey. From this sample, we
removed participants who were under the age of 18, were unemployed or students, or failed to select
the appropriate response to one of the three validity check items. This resulted in a final total of 252
participants. Of this sample, 23 had 1 or 2 items missing from at least one scale. We retained these
participants in the sample for correlations, but only the 229 participants with complete data were
used for the latent model analyses.

Results
Preliminary Analyses. Before beginning our main analysis, we assessed each variable for normality. Only
education (skewness 1.21; kurtosis 1.29) and income (skewness 1.97; kurtosis 5.39)
553

554

Journal of Career Assessment 22(4)

Table 2. Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Study 2 Variables.

1. Work meaning
2. Volition
3. Financial constraints
4. Structural constraints
5. Prestige
6. Income
7. Education
M
SD

.58**
.56**
.52**
.16**
.14*
.16**
44.35
14.93

.55**
.60**
.09
.14*
.04
18.25
5.39

.65**
.16**
.20**
.18**
21.74
7.37

.15*
.19**
.07
17.33
5.83

.37**
.47**
50.93
13.74

.45**
2.21
1.31

5.49
1.25

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01.

had absolute values of skewness and/or kurtosis greater than 1. To normalize education and income, we
conducted a series of transformations (square root, logarithmic base 10, and inverse) on each of
the variables and chose the least powerful transformation that most effectively normalized the
individual variable (Tukey, 1977). The logarithmic 10 transformation normalized income
(skewness .33; kurtosis .33) and the square root transformation normalized education
(skewness .60; kurtosis .20).
Table 2 shows the correlations among our study variables. For the continuous correlations, we
calculated Pearson correlations, but for our two ordinal variables (i.e., education and income), we
calculated Spearman correlations. Work meaning was significantly and largely related to volition
(.58), financial constraints (.56), and structural constraints (.52). It was also significantly related
to prestige (.16), income (.14), and education (.16). Of the social class variables, volition was only
significantly related to income (.14); financial constraints was significantly related to prestige
(.16), income (.20), and education (.18); and structural constraints was significantly related
to prestige (.15) and income (.19). Prestige significantly related to income (.37) and education
(.47), and income and education were also significantly correlated (.45).
Measurement Model. Prior to testing the structural model, we tested a measurement of model of the
five latent constructs. To evaluate the models, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis using
maximum likelihood estimation in AMOS 18 (Arbuckle, 2007). We used fit indices that minimized
likelihood of Type 1 and Type II error (Hu & Bentler, 1999). These included the w2 test, the comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean squared residual (SRMR), and the root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA). A significant w2 can indicate poor fit; however, this test is unreliable and
inflated in larger samples (Tabachnick & Fiddel, 2007). In regard to the other indices of fit, Hu and
Bentler (1999) recommend cutoffs close to or greater than .95 for the CFI, close to or less than .08
for the SRMR, and close to or less than .06 for the RMSEA. However, Browne and Cudeck (1993)
argue that RMSEA values from .06 to .08 indicate fair fitting models.
Since there were fewer than 6 items in each volition subscale, we did not create parcels and
allowed individual items to load onto their respective factor. For work meaning, we created
three parcels corresponding to work meanings three subscales. Social class was composed
of prestige, income, and education. The measurement model yielded good fit indices: w2(142,
N 252) 331.94, p < .001; CFI .93; SRMR .06; and RMSEA .07, p < .01, and all
item/parcels loaded on their hypothesized factor at values of .45 or higher.
Structural Model. Next, we tested the hypothesized, multiple mediator model with social class predicting work meaning through volition, structural constraints, and financial constraints. We allowed the
554

Allan et al.

555

mediators to correlate. The structural model also had good fit indices, w2(142, N 252) 331.94,
p < .001; CFI .93; SRMR .06; and RMSEA .07, p < .01. It also explained 51% of the variance
in the work meaning factor. The final model with standardized b-weights is depicted in Figure 1.
Indirect Effects. Using AMOS 18, we calculated the bias-corrected confidence intervals (CIs) for
the indirect effects with 1,000 bootstrapped samples (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). These intervals
are significant when they do not include zero. Before adding the mediators to the model, social
class had a significant, positive relation with work meaning (b .24, p < .01). After the mediators were included, social class no longer significantly predicted social class (b .05, ns).
The model also had good indices of fit, w2(142, N 252) 331.94, p < .001; CFI .93;
SRMR .06; and RMSEA .07, p < .01. Moreover, the fit of the model was not significantly
changed after removing the direct effect from social class to work meaning, w2(143, N 252)
332.47, p < .001; CFI .93; SRMR .06; and RMSEA .07, p < .01, which also suggests
full mediation. The overall indirect effect including all three mediators was significant (c .15,
standard error [SE] .06, CI [.05, .29]). AMOS 18 does not test individual indirect effects for
each mediator, so we used RMediation, which uses the distribution of product coefficients method
to generate CIs for specific indirect effects (Tofighi & MacKinnon, 2011). The indirect effect structural constraints was not significant (c .01, SE .03, CI .07, .03). However, the indirect
effects for both financial constraints (c .08, SE .04, CI [.02, .17]) and volition (c .08,
SE .04, CI [.01, .16]) were significant.

Discussion
In Study 1, we found a relation between peoples reported level of work meaning and their social
class. The purpose of Study 2 was to attempt to explain this relation with work volition, the perceived ability to make occupational choices despite constraints (Duffy, Diemer, et al., 2012b). First,
we aimed to investigate whether work volition was related to social class and to replicate findings
from previous studies showing work meaning was related to work volition and social class. Supporting our hypotheses, these variables were interrelated. Partially confirming our hypotheses, work
volition fully mediated the relation between social class and work meaning, but only the financial
constraints and volition subscales were significant mediators.
The PWF suggests that work volition is related to social class, and scholars have asserted that
career barriers in the lower classes may reduce work volition (Blustein et al., 2008). This study
found a weak to moderate relation between social class and work volition, which supports these
arguments (Blustein, 2001). This result logically suggests that social and economic barriers may
lead to reduced volition but is also consistent with the broader findings linking social class to variables like locus of control, career decision self-efficacy, access to external resources, experience
of discrimination, and perception of career barriers (Blustein et al., 2002; Fuller-Rowell, Evans, &
Ong, 2012; Kraus, Piff, & Keltner, 2009; Lachman & Weaver, 1998; Redonnet et al., 2012;
Thompson & Subich, 2006, 2011). Similar to work volition and social class, no studies have
directly linked work meaning to work volition. However, researchers have linked calling, a similar
construct to work meaning, to work volition (Duffy & Autin, 2013). Extending the findings from
these studies, we found large correlations between work meaning and each subscale of the work
volition construct. This suggests that people who feel like they have choice and freedom in their
career decision making are more likely to report that their work is meaningful.
Our final hypothesis was that the three work volition subscales would fully mediate the relation
between social class and work meaning. Supporting this claim, social class ceased to have a relation
with work meaning after controlling for these variables, although only the financial constraints and
volition subscales had significant indirect effects. Though tentative given the lack of longitudinal
555

556

Journal of Career Assessment 22(4)

data, this result suggests that being from a lower of working-class background may increase the
perception that career choices are constrained (Blustein, 2001). In turn, low work volition may hurt
peoples ability to seek out and obtain work that they find personally meaningful. The finding that
financial concerns among the lower and working classes are more salient (Blustein et al., 2002; Brief
et al., 1995) may lead people to choose work that is not intrinsically rewarding and does not necessarily match their values, interests, or skills (Blustein, 2001). Supporting this, several scholars have
suggested that intrinsic motivation is crucial to developing a sense of meaningfulness (Weinstein,
Ryan, & Deci, 2012), and some studies have directly linked meaningful work to intrinsic motivation
(Dik, Sargent, & Steger, 2008; Steger et al., 2012).
Contrary to our hypothesis, structural concerns did not play a role in the relation between social
class and work meaning. This is somewhat surprising, given the impact of external, structural influences on career choice and development. For example, studies have demonstrated the impact of
racism and discrimination on career development and progress (Tovar-Murray et al., 2012). It is possible that structural constraints are more subject to moderating variables than financial constraints.
For example, race may impact variables like perceived structural constraints due to discrimination.
Related to this, structural constraints may not have been significant due to the lack of diversity in our
sample, as discussed below. Future studies should investigate this possibility by testing whether
variables such as race and disability moderate the relation between social class and structural
constraints.

General Discussion
This study investigated work meaning in the context of the PWF (Blustein et al., 2008). Namely, we
investigated whether people from different social classes had different levels and sources of work
meaning and sought to explain these differences with work volition, the perceived ability to make
vocational choices despite constraints. In Study 1, people in the lower and working classes reported
less work meaning than those in the middle and upper classes. However, regardless of class, people
generally cited helping others or contributing to the greater good to be the main source of their
works meaning. In Study 2, we attempted to use the PWF concept of work volition to explain the
link between social class and work meaning. Results revealed that volition and financial constraints
fully mediated the relation between social class and work meaning; therefore, constraints associated
with social class may hinder people from choosing work that they find personally meaningful.
Both studies found a consistent positive relation between class and work meaning, and results
suggest that this may be due to people in lower social classes having lower work volition. This does
not necessarily mean that finding meaningful work is not an important need or goal for people in
lower and working classes, and several authors have argued that finding meaning is itself a basic
psychological need (Andersen, Chen, & Carter, 2000; Frankl, 1963). Regardless, the question
remains whether finding meaningful work is a luxury available only to people with relatively high
work volition and low financial constraints. Our results seem to suggest that this is not the case: The
relation between class and work meaning was generally small, and people of all classes reported
similar sources of their works meaning. That said future research should seek to better understand
the impact of having lower work meaning for those in the lower and working classes.
As discussed in Study 2, the results of our mediation analysis suggest that people in lower and
working classes may have financial constraints and low volition that hinder their ability to choose
work thats intrinsically valuable and motivated. Having low work volition may also directly hurt
peoples ability to meet their autonomy needs. However, this explanation is somewhat at odds with
our finding that most people cite helping others or contributing to the greater good as the source of
their works meaning. Moreover, only a few people mentioned mastery or autonomy as the reason
why their work was meaningful. There are two possible interpretations of this finding. First,
556

Allan et al.

557

prosocial motivations may fundamentally be meeting the psychological need for relatedness. Relatedness not only involves interacting with others but also caring for others (Deci & Ryan, 2000),
which is a main component of prosocial behavior. This is evident in studies highlighting the close
relation between relatedness and prosocial behavior. For example, in one study, participants writing
about experiences of relatedness had an increased sense of connectedness, reported increased prosocial intentions, and engaged in more prosocial behavior (Pavey, Greitemeyer, & Sparks, 2011).
However, this does not explain how social class and work volition play a role in this relation. One
possibility is that low work volition may restrict people from finding prosocial work, but regardless
of social class, most work can be seen as having prosocial impact or contributing to the greater good
in some way (Dik & Duffy, 2012). Weinstein and Ryan (2010) offer a compelling solution to this
problem. In a series of studies, the authors showed that psychological need satisfaction mediates the
relation between prosocial behavior and well-being. However, this was only for volitional prosocial
behavior that participants had chosen themselves. Therefore, high work volition may allow people to
experience work meaning by feeling a sense of autonomy about their prosocial work. This conclusion is beyond the scope of our data, but it fits previous research in this area and offers an intriguing
direction for future research.

Limitations and Future Directions

A major limitation of our studies illustrates Blusteins (2001) criticism of contemporary vocational
psychology. The two study samples were both largely White, had more income than average, and
were highly educated. Although both studies had representation from all social classes, the lower
and working classes were somewhat underrepresented, at least according to income and education.
This is an inherent problem with online data collection and partly reflects age, race, income, education, and gender disparities in those who use and have most access to the Internet (Etter & Perneger,
2001; Rhodes, Bowie, & Hergenrather, 2003). Given that we still had good representation of each
class in Study 1 and a good deal of variation in our latent social class variable in Study 2, this bias
does not invalidate the results of our studies. However, results should be replicated with samples that
proportionally reflect class differences in the United States. Moreover, future studies should actively
recruit members of lower social classes, whether participants are being recruited online or from the
community.
Second, interpretation of our results required discussing several key variables that we did not
measure. Specifically, our argument suggests that people with low work volition are less able to
choose jobs that are intrinsically meaningful or meet psychological needs. However, we did not
measure intrinsic motivation, intrinsic goals, or need satisfaction. Although these variables have
been linked to work meaning (Dik et al., 2008; Steger et al., 2012), they have not been studied in
the context of social class and work volition. Future studies should investigate whether intrinsic
motivation mediates the relation between work volition and work meaning. If this were the case,
it would support the psychology of working interpretation of our results and help toward future
model building. Finally, this study did not assess variables at different points in time. Generally,
three waves of data are recommended to confidently assess mediation (Maxwell & Cole, 2007). Not
having longitudinal data negates our ability to determine the temporal relations among the
constructs, and it is therefore impossible to determine cause and effect. Future studies should address
this limitation with longitudinal studies.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
557

558

Journal of Career Assessment 22(4)

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Andersen, S. M., Chen, S., & Carter, C. (2000). Fundamental human needs: Making social cognition relevant.
Psychological Inquiry, 11, 269275. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_02
Arbuckle, J. L. (2007). Amos (Version 18.0) [Computer Program]. Chicago, IL: SPSS.
Berg, P., & Frost, A. C. (2005). Dignity at work for low wage, low skill service workers. Relations Industrielles/
Industrial Relations, 60, 657682. doi:10.7202/012339ar
Blustein, D. L. (2001). Extending the reach of vocational psychology: Toward an inclusive and integrated
psychology of working. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 171182. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1823
Blustein, D. L. (2006). The psychology of working: A new perspective for career development, counseling, and
public policy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Blustein, D. L., Chaves, A. P., Diemer, M. A., Gallagher, L. A., Marshall, K. G., Sirin, S., & Bhati, K. S. (2002).
Voices of the forgotten half: The role of social class in the school-to- work transition. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 49, 311323. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.49.3.311
Blustein, D. L., Kenna, A. C., Gill, N., & Devoy, J. E. (2008). The psychology of working: A new framework
for counseling practice and public policy. Career Development Quarterly, 56, 294308. doi:10.1002/j.21610045.2008.tb00095.x
Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 371399. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135233
Brief, A. P., Konovsky, M. A., Goodwin, R., & Link, K. (1995). Inferring the meaning of work from the effects
of unemployment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 693711. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.
tb01769.x
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long
(Eds.), Testing structural models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazons mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive,
yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 35. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980
Bunderson, J. S., & Thompson, J. A. (2009). The call of the wild: Zookeepers, callings, and the double-edged sword
of deeply meaningful work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 3257. doi:10.2189/asqu.2009.54.1.32
Cohen, S., Doyle, W. J., & Baum, A. (2006). Socioeconomic status is associated with stress hormones.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 68, 414420. doi:10.1097/01.psy.0000221236.37158.b9
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
DeVaro, J., Li, R., & Brookshire, D. (2007). Analysing the job characteristics model: New support from a crosssection of establishments. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 9861003. doi:
10.1080/09585190701321211
Diemer, M. A., Mistry, R. S., Wadsworth, M. E., Lopez, I., & Reimers, F. (2012). Best practices in conceptualizing and measuring social class in psychological science. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy,
137.
Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Make your job a calling: How the psychology of vocation can change your life
at work. Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press
Dik, B. J., Duffy, R. D., & Eldridge, B. (2009). Calling and vocation in career counseling: Recommendations
for promoting meaningful work. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 625632. doi:
10.1037/a0015547
Dik, B. J., Sargent, A. M., & Steger, M. F. (2008). Career development strivings: Assessing goals and
motivation in career decision-making and planning. Journal of Career Development, 35, 2341. doi:
10.1177/0894845308317934
558

Allan et al.

559

Duffy, R. D., Allan, B. A., Autin, K. L., & Bott, E. M. (2013). Calling and life satisfaction: Its not about having
it, its about living it. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 4252. doi:10.1037/a0030635
Duffy, R. D., & Autin, K. L. (2013). Disentangling the link between perceiving a calling and living a calling.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 219227.
Duffy, R. D., Bott, E. M., Allan, B. A., & Torrey, C. L. (2013). Examining a model of life satisfaction among
unemployed adults. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 5363. doi:10.1037/a0030771
Duffy, R. D., Bott, E. M., Allan, B. A., Torrey, C. L., & Dik, B. J. (2012a). Perceiving a calling, living a calling,
and job satisfaction: Testing a moderated, multiple mediator model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59,
5059. doi:10.1037/a0026129
Duffy, R. D., Bott, E. M., Torrey, C. L., & Webster, G. D. (2013). Work volition as a critical moderator in the
prediction of job satisfaction. Journal of Career Assessment, 21, 2031. doi:10.1177/1069072712453831
Duffy, R. D., Diemer, M. A., Perry, J. C., Laurenzi, C., & Torrey, C. L. (2012b). The construction and initial validation of the work volition scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 400411. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.04.002
Etter, J. F., & Perneger, T. V. (2001). A comparison of cigarette smokers recruited through the Internet or by
mail. International Journal of Epidemiology, 30, 521525. doi:10.1093/ije/30.3.521
Fernet, C., Gagne, M., & Austin, S. (2010). When does quality of relationships with coworkers predict burnout
over time? The moderating role of work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 11631180.
doi:10.1002/job.673
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Frankl, V. E. (1963). Mans search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy. Oxford, England: Washington
Square Press.
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis.
Personnel Psychology, 40, 287322. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00605.x
Fuller-Rowell, T. E., Evans, G. W., & Ong, A. D. (2012). Poverty and health: The mediating role of perceived
discrimination. Psychological Science, 23, 734739. doi:10.1177/0956797612439720
Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the desire to make a prosocial difference. Academy of
Management Review, 32, 393417. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.24351328
Grant, A. M. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and
boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 108124. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.108
Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 55, 259286. doi:10.1037/h0031152
Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 60, 159170. doi:10.1037/h0076546
Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health
Research, 15, 12771288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 155. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual
work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 13321356. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332
Janicki-Deverts, D., Cohen, S., Adler, N. E., Schwartz, J. E., Matthews, K. A., & Seeman, T. E. (2007).
Socioeconomic status is related to urinary catecholamines in the coronary artery risk development in young
adults (CARDIA) study. Psychosomatic Medicine, 69, 514520. doi:10.1097/PSY.0b013e3180f60645
Kalleberg, A. L. (1977). Work values and job rewards: A theory of job satisfaction. American Sociological
Review, 42, 124143.
Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., & Keltner, D. (2009). Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 97, 9921004. doi:10.1037/a0016357
Lachman, M. E., & Weaver, S. L. (1998). The sense of control as a moderator of social class differences in health
and well-being. Journal of personality and social psychology, 74, 763. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.763
559

560

Journal of Career Assessment 22(4)

Liu, W., Ali, S., Soleck, G., Hopps, J., Dunston, K., & Pickett, T. R. (2004). Using social class in counseling
psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 318. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.3
Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychological
Methods, 12, 2344. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.23
McNeese-Smith, D. K., & McNeese-Smith. (1999). A content analysis of staff nurse descriptions of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29, 13321341. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.01018.x
Mpofu, E., Stevens, C., Biggs, H. C., & Johnson, E. T. (2012). Socio-structural influences on the work participation of refugees: An exploratory systematic mixed studies review. Vulnerable Groups & Inclusion, 3. doi:
10.3402/vgi.v3i0.16066
Nakao, K., & Treas, J. (1994). Updating occupational prestige and socioeconomic scores: How the new measures measure up. Sociological Methodology, 24, 172.
Parham, T., & Helms, J. E. (1985). Relation of racial identity attitudes to self-actualization and affective states
of black students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 3, 24312440. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.32.3.431
Pavey, L., Greitemeyer, T., & Sparks, P. (2011). Highlighting relatedness promotes prosocial motives and
behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 905917. doi:10.1177/0146167211405994
Pratt, M. G., & Ashforth, B. E. (2003). Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work. In K. S. Cameron,
J. E. Dutton & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 309327). San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Koehler.
Redonnet, B., Chollet, A., Fombonne, E., Bowes, L., & Melchior, M. (2012). Tobacco, alcohol, cannabis and
other illegal drug use among young adults: The socioeconomic context. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 121,
231239. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.09.002
Reeve, J., Nix, G., & Hamm, D. (2003). Testing models of the experience of self-determination in intrinsic
motivation and the conundrum of choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 375392. doi:10.1037/
0022-0663.95.2.375
Rhodes, S. D., Bowie, D. A., & Hergenrather, K. C. (2003). Collecting behavioral data using the world
wide web: Considerations for researchers. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 57, 6873.
doi:10.1136/jech.57.1.68
Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and
review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 91127. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001
Schaafsma, J. (2011). Discrimination and subjective well-being: The moderating roles of identification with
the heritage group and the host majority group. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 786795. doi:
10.1002/ejsp.825
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures
and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422445.
Smith, P., Caputi, P., & Crittenden, N. (2012). How are womens glass ceiling beliefs related to career success?
Career Development International, 17, 458474. doi:10.1108/13620431211269702
Sprouse, J. (2011). A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in
linguistic theory. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 155167. doi:10.3758/s13428-010-0039-7
Stacey, C. L. (2005). Finding dignity in dirty work: The constraints and rewards of low wage home care labour.
Sociology of Health & Illness, 27, 831854. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2005.00476.x
Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work: The work and meaning inventory
(WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 322337. doi:10.1177/1069072711436160
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Thompson, M. N., & Subich, L. M. (2006). The relation of social status to the career decision-making process.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 289301. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2006.04.008
Thompson, M. N., & Subich, L. M. (2011). Social status identity: Antecedents and vocational outcomes. The
Counseling Psychologist, 39, 735763. doi:10.1177/0011000010389828
Tofighi, D., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2011). RMediation: An R package for mediation analysis confidence
intervals. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 692700.
560

Allan et al.

561

Tovar-Murray, D., Jenifer, E. S., Andrusyk, J., DAngelo, R., & King, T. (2012). Racism-related stress and
ethnic identity as determinants of African American college students career aspirations. Career
Development Quarterly, 60, 254262. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2012.00021.x
Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior and
its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98,
222244. doi:10.1037/a0016984
Weinstein, N., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2012). Motivation, meaning, and wellness: A self-determination
perspective on the creation and internalization of personal meanings and life goals. In P. P. Wong (Ed.),
The human quest for meaning: Theories, research, and applications (2nd ed., pp. 81106). New York,
NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

561