Abstract
People sometimes must choose between prioritizing meaningful work or high compensation. Eight studies (N = 4,177; 7 preregistered) examined the relative importance of meaningful work and salary in evaluations of actual and hypothetical jobs. Although meaningful work and high salaries are both perceived as highly important job attributes when evaluated independently, when presented with tradeoffs between these job attributes, participants consistently preferred high-salary jobs with low meaningfulness over low-salary jobs with high meaningfulness (Studies 1-5). Forecasts of happiness and meaning outside of work helped explain condition differences in job interest (Studies 4 and 5). Extending the investigation toward actual jobs, Studies 6a and 6b showed that people express stronger preferences for higher pay (vs. more meaningful work) in their current jobs. Although meaningful work is a strongly valued job attribute, it may be less influential than salary to evaluations of hypothetical and current jobs.
People pursue endeavors that feel meaningful and that can affect something much larger than themselves (Baumeister, 1991). Meaningful work involves pursuing important, personally valued goals that can contribute to other people and society broadly, consequently imbuing these goals with broader significance (e.g., Pratt & Ashforth, 2003; Steger et al., 2012). Many people strongly value meaningful work (Gallup, 2019). Meaningful work has myriad benefits, as it is linked to higher work engagement, job satisfaction, and career commitment as well as lower burnout and depression (Steger et al., 2012, 2013).
Although meaningful work is highly beneficial and desired, it is often hard to find. A recent nationally representative study showed that the majority of working young adults in the United States believe that their current work lacks meaning (Gallup, 2019). Experiencing work that feels meaningless can lead people to be unmotivated and uninspired, believing their efforts have little societal or organizational value (Steger et al., 2013; Ward & King, 2017). Why do people desire meaningful work but tend not to experience it? Meaningful work may be highly desirable when evaluated independently of other job attributes but less important when evaluated alongside high salary, another strongly valued job attribute. Both salary and meaningful work are important job preferences (e.g., Gallup, 2019; Wiley, 1997) that are likely central priorities when people evaluate potential future jobs or consider their current job’s limitations.
Surely, people would likely strive for both high pay and highly meaningful work. Although some workers are fortunate to have high-wage jobs they find highly meaningful, in a competitive labor market, tradeoffs between these desired job attributes are common (e.g., Spencer, 2015), leading to conflicting decisions about which to prioritize, which may become increasingly prevalent due to rising financial instability (e.g., Gould & Kandra, 2022). Many popular careers that are viewed as deeply meaningful—education, social work, nonprofit work—involve low wages (Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2021). People sometimes must choose between a highly meaningful job (e.g., public-interest lawyer) and a comparatively higher salary job with lower perceived meaningfulness (e.g., corporate lawyer). Existing research has addressed whether people will make financial sacrifices in pursuit of meaningful work and which people are especially inclined to make these sacrifices (e.g., Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Hu & Hirsh, 2017).
The overarching aim of this research was to illuminate whether people have stronger relative preferences for meaningful work versus salary when evaluating hypothetical jobs or their current jobs. First, Studies 1 to 5 examined which job attribute people prioritize when evaluating hypothetical jobs that involve sizable tradeoffs between meaningful work and salary: Would people prefer a highly meaningful job with a low salary or a high-salary job that lacks meaning? Second, Studies 6a and 6b probed whether people would prefer more meaningful work or higher pay if they could increase either attribute in their current job. Systematically investigating relative job preferences when people face tradeoffs or can increase either job attribute can better inform our understanding of whether meaningful work or high pay is more strongly valued when people must choose between these highly desirable job attributes.
Preferences for both hypothetical and current jobs were examined to determine if relative preferences for meaningful work versus salary are consistent across decision-making contexts and to provide insight into how such preferences may guide job selection and job retention. Studies 1 to 5 investigated how relative preferences for meaningful work versus high salary shape broader job preferences, specifically application intent and job interest, which can inform job selection and career decisions (e.g., Arcidiacono et al., 2012). Although meaningful work is strongly valued, it was predicted that when people face tradeoffs between higher salary versus meaningful work, preferences for high salary will predominate, leading people to exhibit stronger preferences for high-salary jobs lacking meaning versus highly meaningful jobs with low salaries. Such preferences were expected to result from forecasts that high-salary jobs lacking meaning would promote greater personal well-being outside of work than highly meaningful jobs with low salaries. Studies 6a and 6b examined if stronger relative preferences for higher pay versus more meaningful work emerge in people’s evaluations of their current jobs, suggesting that such preferences could influence job retention or motivation, just as they may shape job selection.
Meaningful Work
People are motivated to find meaning in their lives wherever and however possible (e.g., Baumeister, 1991). Work is an important outlet to experience meaningfulness because of the substantial time and energy expended working. Cultural norms regarding the importance of a successful career may lead to heightened expectations that work provides personal meaning and fulfillment (e.g., Baumeister, 1991; Gallup, 2019). However, experiencing meaningful work can be challenging, as work often involves completing tasks that are unrelated to one’s broader personal goals or that lack broader significance. Most people must work for extrinsic rewards rather than intrinsic enjoyment, exchanging their labor for money instead of engaging in activities that might feel more personally meaningful (e.g., Baumeister, 1991).
Although most people work primarily for compensation, financial incentives are insufficiently motivating, and intrinsic rewards are more beneficial for sustaining motivation and performance (Gagné & Forest, 2008; Lussier, 2019). Meaningful work propels motivation, helping people feel that their efforts and energy translate into personally and societally important outcomes. Meaningful work adds purpose and significance to one’s life (Steger et al., 2012), helping people feel that life, more broadly, is meaningful (Ward & King, 2017).
People strive to do work that has an important impact on their coworkers, organizations, and communities. Making a positive social impact is integral to many conceptualizations of meaningful work (Dik et al., 2013; Rosso et al., 2010; Steger et al., 2012). Recognizing that one’s work benefits others fosters self-transcendence and significance, enhancing meaning (e.g., Dik et al., 2013). When evaluating potential jobs, people are likely to value work that seems meaningful and makes important social contributions. Although meaning is a fundamental human motive (e.g., Baumeister, 1991), the motivational salience of meaningful work may sharply decrease when considered alongside salary, another desired job attribute.
Salary
Compensation is highly influential to job evaluations (Spence, 1973; Wiley, 1997). High salaries signal an occupation’s desirability, attracting competitive prospective applicants (e.g., Spence, 1973). Salary is a strong, long-standing motivator of job preferences and application intentions in occupationally diverse workers (e.g., Cable & Judge, 1994; Osborn, 1990; Wiley, 1997). High earnings have become increasingly valued over time because money is perceived to be conducive to social status, independence, and a good lifestyle (Cohen et al., 2019). Most people would choose to have more money over other desirable situations, including being around friends, visiting family, and having additional free time (Benjamin et al., 2012).
Compensation can be deal breaker in job selection, as minimum salaries are often necessary to attract prospective employees’ interest (e.g., Osborn, 1990). Once a minimum compensation threshold is reached, people attend to job attributes beyond compensation (e.g., Osborn, 1990). Although meaningful work may be highly desired (e.g., Gallup, 2019), it may be comparatively less important than salary to job interest. From workers’ perspectives, meaningful work may be nice to have, but high salaries may be crucial. Meaningful work may only be valued more than additional compensation after a particular salary threshold is reached.
Preferences for Meaningful Work Versus Salary
Many people may believe it is complicated to find highly meaningful, high-paying jobs. People fear that “good jobs” enabling a middle-class lifestyle are vanishing (e.g., Ross, 2009), as precarious, low-wage occupations like gig work and part-time work become increasingly common. Meaningful work and high income can be compatible (Cho & Jiang, 2021) and some occupations, like medicine and engineering, may involve highly meaningful work and desirable compensation. Having a high income can promote meaning due to enhanced financial self-efficacy and personal control (Ward & Kim, in press; Ward & King, 2019). Nevertheless, highly meaningful work accompanied by bountiful earnings is uncommon for most workers. The shortage of highly meaningful, high-wage occupations is likely to lead many people to face tradeoffs between meaningful work and high wages, prompting conflict about which strongly valued job attribute to prioritize (e.g., Gallup, 2019; Spencer, 2015; Wiley, 1997). Balancing the desire for purposeful, socially impactful work with needs for financial security and disposable income can be difficult (e.g., Kasser & Ryan, 1993).
Research on the nexus of meaningful work and salary has suggested that people may sometimes prioritize meaningful work despite financial sacrifices. People express willingness to accept lower salaries for highly meaningful versus meaningless hypothetical jobs (Hu & Hirsh, 2017) and a willingness to trade some wages for more meaningful work in their current job (Achor et al., 2018; cf. Net Impact, 2012). Biologists preferring scientific careers accepted approximately 20% lower wages for industry jobs enabling them to advance their research, possibly enhancing meaningful work (Stern, 2004; though cf. Sauermann & Roach, 2014). Workers pursuing a calling—being drawn toward personally and socially meaningful work (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003)—are especially likely to make financial sacrifices to pursue meaningful work (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009).
There is limited theoretical understanding of whether most people typically prioritize meaningful work versus salary when evaluating jobs because research has not systematically investigated relative preferences for these job attributes when people are given the option to maximize either job attribute. Even if people are willing to make financial sacrifices to pursue meaningful work (e.g., Achor et al., 2018; Hu & Hirsh, 2017), this does not clarify people’s relative preferences when such job attributes are evaluated concurrently. Meaningful work may appear to be an important motive because it has not been directly pitted against other valued job preferences. People must evaluate jobs while simultaneously considering salary and meaningful work (among numerous other valued factors) so it is crucial to understand which attribute predominates and which is more readily sacrificed when they are directly and systematically compared at high and low levels where tradeoffs are inherent.
Monetary sacrifices made for meaningful work have often been examined among people pursuing a calling, a sample likely to strongly prioritize meaningful work (e.g., Bunderson & Thompson, 2009). The present research examined relative preferences for meaningful work versus salary among demographically and occupationally diverse participants to evaluate the robustness of preferences. Systematically probing relative preferences for meaningful work versus salary and the mechanisms underlying these preferences can help identify barriers some people may encounter in experiencing meaningful work and potentially help reconcile why meaningful work is infrequently experienced (e.g., Gallup, 2019) despite being an important priority people claim they are willing to make monetary sacrifices for (Achor et al., 2018; Hu & Hirsh, 2017).
Current Job Preferences
In addition to identifying relative preferences regarding hypothetical future jobs, it was also important to examine if such preferences extend to people’s current occupations. Decisions regarding the distant and near future may be shaped by different motivations and information. When evaluating future occupations, people may have a limited understanding of what meaningful work in the position entails, leading salary to serve as a reliable signal of the occupation’s desirability (e.g., Spence, 1973) or a seemingly rational basis for judgment (Hsee et al., 2003). People may desire meaningful work (vs. salary) more strongly in their current job versus a hypothetical future job because they have more firsthand experience about what they value at work. However, temporal construal theory suggests that people may be more inclined to consider concrete details when assessing current (vs. future) events (Trope & Liberman, 2003), suggesting people may prioritize higher pay (concrete job attribute) relative to meaningful work (more abstract job attribute) when evaluating their current job, perhaps even more than when evaluating a future job. Preferences for greater compensation were hypothesized to predominate over meaningful work when people express what they desire more of in their current occupation. The strong motivational appeal of high salaries can be understood by considering the far ranging, albeit inaccurate, perceived benefits of money.
Reasons for Prioritizing High Salaries: Forecasting Errors
Compensation can be a potent motivator because it facilitates the attainment of myriad physiological, social, and psychological needs (e.g., Cohen et al., 2019; Wiley, 1997). However, the perceived benefits of financial resources for well-being are greatly exaggerated. Although income is only weakly linked to meaning in life and other well-being indices (e.g., Ward & King, 2019), people forecast that income is highly influential to meaning in life and well-being due to affective forecasting errors (Aknin et al., 2009; Sheldon et al., 2010; Ward & King, 2019). The present research examined a novel extension of forecasting errors, testing whether beliefs that low compensation hinders happiness and meaning in one’s personal life (even if one has a highly meaningful job) will lead people to prioritize compensation over meaningful work. Inaccurately believing that happiness results from the attainment of extrinsic goals fuels motives to pursue extrinsic goals (Sheldon et al., 2010). Understanding how forecasts shape job evaluations may help illuminate why people frequently experience meaningless, unfulfilling work (Gallup, 2019), ultimately harming their general well-being (e.g., Ward & King, 2017).
People may have greater interest in high-salary jobs lacking meaningfulness than highly meaningful jobs with low salaries because they focus on how salary will affect their lives and well-being outside of work. Meaningful work may offer fewer perceived tangible benefits than salary extending beyond work. Work is one of many life activities that can promote meaning (e.g., Baumeister, 1991), and people can easily implement changes to compensate for lacking meaningful work, such as pursuing hobbies, maintaining supportive relationships, or volunteering. It may seem rational to maximize salary—a job attribute believed to promote numerous life benefits—and compromise on attributes with fewer perceived benefits (e.g., Cohen et al., 2019; Hsee et al., 2003). Because low incomes are believed to hinder happiness and meaning in life (Aknin et al., 2009; Ward & King, 2019), people may have lower interest in low-salary jobs and overlook the well-being benefits of meaningful work in low-wage occupations, instead being more strongly interested in high-salary jobs even if they lack meaning.
Overview
Eight studies examined relative preferences for meaningful work versus high salary in job evaluations. Before experimentally pitting these job preferences, preliminary studies (described in the Supplemental Material) confirmed that across diverse samples, high salaries and meaningful work were both rated as highly important job attributes when evaluated independently. Studies 1 to 5 used varied experimental designs to investigate if people would express stronger interest in high-salary jobs with low meaningfulness or low-salary jobs with high meaningfulness. Studies 4 and 5 investigated if forecasts about jobs’ links to happiness and meaning outside of work help explain differences in job interest. Studies 6a and 6b examined relative preferences in people’s current jobs.
High and low salaries were operationalized both objectively (values representative of workers in the United States; Studies 1, 2, 4, and 5) and more subjectively (deviations from participants’ expected salaries; Studies 3a and 3b). High/low salary values included in manipulations (Studies 1, 2, 4, and 5) were intended to capture being in the top income quartile versus the bottom income quartile (in the United States; BLS, 2019), respectively, and were tailored toward participant samples (Studies 3a and 3b). Salary and meaningful work were manipulated at high and low levels, building on evidence that valuing extrinsic goals relative to intrinsic goals (e.g., a high-salary/low-meaning job) is most detrimental to well-being and motivation, rather than overall levels of extrinsic goals (e.g., Kasser & Ryan, 1993).
Participants
Aiming to test the generalizability and robustness of results, these studies examined diverse samples, including full-time working professionals, adults recruited via Mechanical Turk (“Mturk”) and Prolific, and undergraduate students (see Table 1). Most participants were from the United States, though Studies 3a and 6a included some international participants recruited from U.S.-based research pools. It was valuable to examine whether relative preferences for high salaries would emerge in working professionals with high incomes, who may be less motivated for additional money (Studies 3a and 6a), and in Mturk/Prolific samples, who have household incomes more representative of the general United States population (Litman & Robinson, 2020), and thus may have financial motives similar to many American adults.
Participants’ Household and Personal Income, Studies 1-6b.
Note. Values represent percentages of reported incomes within each study. All values are US$. Studies 3 and 6 report income only for participants currently residing in the United States.
Participant Income
Income was measured across studies for exploratory purposes (see Table 1). Studies 6a and 6b report the effect of income in the manuscript. As reported in the Supplemental Material, participants’ income was either weakly related or unrelated to preferences across studies. Condition differences in job interest in Studies 1, 4, and 5 (between-participant designs) held when controlling for household income. There were small differences in relative preferences across bracketed income categories in Studies 3a, 3b, and 6a, but none in Studies 2 or 6b (within-participant designs).
Preregistration and Exclusion Details
Data, materials, and preregistrations are accessible here: https://osf.io/pekux/?view_only=79d7fe8378164f2f92690a696c160667 Study 6b was not preregistered and was part of a broader work attitudes survey. The Supplemental Material contains individual study preregistration links.
No a priori power analyses were conducted except for in Study 3b. 1 As preregistered, sample sizes were determined by budgetary constraints and subject pool allotments. Reported sample sizes are after applicable preregistered exclusions (Supplemental Material includes pre-exclusion sample sizes). 2 Studies were conducted online. Unless otherwise noted, items were rated from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree.
Study 1
Would people exhibit stronger relative preferences for high salaries over highly meaningful work when faced with a tradeoff between these valued job attributes? Participants in Study 1 (a preregistered 3 replication of a preliminary study described in the Supplemental Material) were randomly assigned to read about a high-salary/low-meaning job or a high-meaning/low-salary job and then rate job interest. The high-salary/low-meaning job condition was expected to express higher job interest than the high-meaning/low-salary job condition. In Study 1, high (US$75,000) and low (US$40,000) salary values were chosen to approximate relatively desirable and less desirable starting salaries an average college student might realistically expect upon graduation.
Method
Participants were undergraduate students recruited from a university research pool in the Midwest region of the United States who earned research participation credit (N = 155; 61% women; 39% men; age, M(SD) = 20.09(2.02)). As preregistered, this sample size was based on the semester-long subject pool allotment and the number of available participants in the research pool. The maximum number of participants possible was run to reach this sample size (here and in Studies 3a and 6a). Table 1 shows the participants’ household income (for this and all subsequent studies). The Supplemental Material includes additional demographic information for Study 1 and all subsequent studies. 4
Participants were randomly assigned to rate either a high-meaning/low-salary job (n = 75) or a high-salary/low-meaning job (n = 80). Instructions stated: “Imagine that you are searching for a job. You find an interesting position and you meet all of the requirements for it. You have also heard good things about the company.” Similar generic positive details were added for jobs (across conditions) in all studies. Descriptions of high and low-meaning occupations (see materials for full details) were based on theoretically accepted definitions of meaningful work (Dik et al., 2013; Rosso et al., 2010; Steger et al., 2012). The highly meaningful job was described as feeling meaningful and enabling one to make contributions that make a positive difference in the world. The low-meaning job involved the absence of these qualities (i.e., would not feel meaningful or enable contributions that make a positive difference). Salaries were listed at the end of job descriptions: high-salary job: US$75,000 annually; low-salary job: US$40,000 annually; representing high/low expected starting salaries for typical students, as the average starting salary of a recent college graduate is approximately US$50,000 (National Association of Colleges and Employers, 2020).
Job Evaluations
All job evaluation items and descriptive statistics for Studies 1 to 5 are shown in Table 2.
Summary of Methodological Details, Studies 1 to 5.
Note. Means and standard deviations for jobs in Studies 2 and 3 (within-subjects designs) are reported in the text for these studies.
Job Interest
Participants rated their overall interest and application intent (two items) for the position described, assuming they needed a job, from 1 not at all to 7 extremely [interested/likely].
Meaningful Work and Salary Desirability
As a manipulation check, participants rated three items capturing perceptions of meaningful work (e.g., “This would feel like a meaningful career,” adapted from the Work and Meaning Inventory; Steger et al., 2012) and two items capturing salary desirability (e.g., “This job has a desirable salary”). Expected happiness was rated for exploratory purposes (see Supplemental Material for discussion).
Results
The high-meaning/low-salary job was viewed as more meaningful, M(SD) = 4.88(1.27), than the high-salary/low-meaning job, M(SD) = 3.50(1.37); t(153) = 6.48, p < .001, d = 1.05. The high-salary/low-meaning job had a more desirable salary, M(SD) = 4.84(1.37), than the high-meaning/low-salary job, M(SD) = 2.53(1.57); t(153) = 9.78, p < .001, d = 1.58. Collapsing across conditions, job interest was positively correlated with perceptions of meaningful work, r = .35, and salary desirability, r = .58, p’s < .001 (correlations were largely consistent across subsequent studies).
As predicted, participants expressed higher interest in the high-salary/low-meaning job, M(SD) = 5.04(1.24), than the high-meaning/low-salary job, M(SD) = 4.42(1.68); t(153) = 2.61, p = .01, d = 0.42 (Figure 1).
Interest in Position by Experimental Condition (High-Meaning/Low-Salary Job vs. High-Salary/Low-Meaning Job), Study 1.
Study 2
Study 2 investigated if people would express stronger preferences for a high-salary/low-meaning job versus a high-meaning/low-salary job when both jobs were directly compared. Participants read about both jobs, having the capacity to fully cogitate distinctions before selecting their preference. This ensured that the stronger relative preferences for salary versus meaningful work in Study 1 were not simply caused by the between-subjects design preventing participants from directly comparing prospective jobs’ meaningfulness and salary.
Method
Participants from Mturk (N = 187; 58% women; 42% men; age M(SD) = 37.87(12.14)) read descriptions for a high-salary/low-meaning job and a high-meaning/low-salary job (Positions “A” and “B”). This preregistered sample size was based on budgetary constraints (here and in Studies 4 and 5). High/low-meaning job descriptions were similar to those used in Study 1 (work that makes a positive difference in the world vs. does not). 5 The high-salary job paid $75,000 per year and the low-salary job paid US$30,000 per year, representing the 75th and 25th percentiles, respectively, of salaries for U.S. workers across all demographic categories in the third quarter of 2019 (BLS, 2019); values were rounded to simplify interpretation.
Job Evaluations
Job Interest
After selecting which job (labeled A or B) they had higher overall interest in, participants rated overall job interest (“How interested would you be in working in this position?,” from 1 not at all interested to 7 extremely interested).
Meaningful Work
Participants also rated expected meaningfulness (“This would feel like a meaningful career,” Steger et al., 2012) for both jobs. 6 See Table 2 for descriptive statistics.
Job descriptions and ratings were presented in counterbalanced order. Order did not influence job selection, χ2(1, N = 187) = 2.09, p = .15, so it is not discussed further (Supplemental Material includes exploratory analyses of order effects).
Results
The high-meaning/low-salary job had higher expected meaningfulness, M(SD) = 5.54(1.42), than the high-salary/low-meaning job, M(SD) = 3.96(1.64); paired t(183) = 8.40, p < .001, d = 0.61.
As predicted, when selecting between jobs, 84.5% of participants preferred the high-salary/low-meaning job, whereas 15.5% of participants preferred the high-meaning/low-salary job, a significant difference, χ2(1, N = 187) = 88.99, p < .001 (Figure 2). 7 Similarly, on the continuous rating scale, participants expressed greater overall interest in the high-salary/low-meaning job, M(SD) = 5.83(1.40), than the high-meaning/low-salary job, M(SD) = 4.15(1.74); paired t(183) = 8.91, p < .001, d = 0.66.
Percentage of Participants Choosing the High-Meaning/Low-Salary and High-Salary/Low-Meaning Positions, Studies 2, 3a, and 3b.
Study 3a
Study 3a extended the previous experiments in several ways. First, Study 3a examined relative preferences among diverse working professionals, whereas Studies 1 and 2 examined participants with lower average incomes (see Table 1) who may exhibit stronger relative preferences for high salaries. Second, Study 3a manipulated high/low salaries using values that were tailored to participants’ reference points (vs. static values). People have unique, varied perceptions of what constitutes a relatively high or low salary based on their expected future salary, which could shape the desirability of specific salaries used in manipulations. In Study 3a, the high and low salary values for hypothetical jobs were ±US$20,000 deviations from participants’ expected salaries at their next job. Showing stronger relative preferences for high salaries over meaningful work across wide-ranging salary levels (e.g., US$40,000 vs. US$80,000; US$120,000 vs. US$160,000) would confirm that the specific salaries used in earlier studies did not explain findings.
Third, Study 3a examined how people’s work orientations influence relative preferences. Calling orientations may promote preferences for the high-meaning/low-salary job, whereas being motivated to work to maintain financial security (job orientation) or professional advancement (career orientation) might predict preferences for the high-salary/low-meaning job. Finally, Study 3a tested if jobs differed in other dimensions that are important to control for when evaluating the robustness of differences in job interest, including expectations of a negative work environment, coworker support, autonomy, pride in work, job satisfaction, and happiness.
Method
Participants were working professionals enrolled in a part-time online MBA program 8 who were recruited from a university research pool and completed this study for research participation credit (N = 304; 42% women; 58% men; age M(SD) = 35.91(7.94)). Approximately 83% of participants currently resided in the United States; 17% resided in 25 other countries. 9
Job descriptions (high-salary/low-meaning; high-meaning/low-salary) and ratings were presented in counterbalanced order. Order did not influence job selection, χ2(1, N = 304) = 0.007, p = .94. Meaningful work descriptions were consistent with Study 1.
Salary Values
Early in the study, participants indicated their expected annual salary at their next job (post-graduation) from a list of 23 options in US$10,000 increments. Realistic estimates were encouraged. Responses spanned the full range, from US$30,000 or less per year (2% participants) to US$250,000 or more per year (1.6% participants); mode = US$120,000; median = US$110,000. These values were used to generate high and low salaries for the jobs participants evaluated after filler questionnaires. The salary for the high-salary job was US$20,000 greater than participants’ expected salary, whereas the low-salary job was US$20,000 lower than participants’ expected salary (e.g., for expected salary of US$100,000, high-salary job: US$120,000 annual salary; low-salary job: US$80,000 annual salary). Participants who selected expected salaries below US$30,000 or above US$250,000 were given high/low salaries deviating from these specific salaries. US$20,000 deviations were used to roughly approximate the US$40,000 gap between the high- and low-salary jobs in earlier studies. Static numerical deviations (vs. percentile-based) were used so that salary differences between the high/low salary jobs would not differ dramatically across expected salary levels. Thus, as expected salaries increased, the US$40,000 gap between high/low salary jobs represented smaller percentages of the overall salary.
Job Evaluations: Job Interest, Meaningful Work, and Salary Desirability
Participants selected which job they would be more likely to apply for and then rated job interest (2 items), meaningful work (3 items), and salary desirability (2 items) for both jobs (see Table 2 for items and descriptives).
Control Variables
Perceptions of a negative work environment were captured with three items (α = .75 for high-salary/low-meaning job; α = .74 for high-meaning/low-salary job; e.g., “I may be in an unpleasant working environment if I had this job”). Expected coworker support, autonomy, pride in work, job satisfaction, and happiness were captured with one item each (see Supplemental Material).
Work Orientations
After job evaluations and filler measures, participants rated how well scenarios capturing calling, job, and career work orientations described them, from 1 not at all like me to 4 very much like me (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997). The calling orientation scenario, M(SD) = 2.20(1.05), described considering work a central, important aspect of life. The job orientation scenario, M(SD) = 1.98(1.04), described being motivated to work to support financial needs. The career orientation scenario, M(SD) = 2.96(0.91), involved being motivated to perform well to attain occupational advancement.
Results
The high-meaning/low-salary job had higher expected meaningfulness, paired t(303) = 22.49, p < .001, d = 1.29; and a less desirable salary, paired t(303) = 26.62, p < .001, d = 1.53, than the high-salary/low-meaning job (Figure 3). When selecting between jobs, 57.6% of participants preferred the high-salary/low-meaning job, whereas 42.4% of participants preferred the high-meaning/low-salary job, a significant difference, χ2(1, N = 304) = 6.96, p < .001 (Figure 2). Participants expressed greater overall job interest (continuous ratings) in the high-salary/low-meaning (vs. high-meaning/low-salary) job, paired t(303) = 2.32, p = .021, d = 0.13 (Figure 3).
Job Ratings by Job Target, Study 3a.
Although job interest was higher for the high-salary/low-meaning job, this job was otherwise perceived more negatively (Figure 3), including higher expectations of a negative work environment and lower coworker support, autonomy, pride in work, and job satisfaction (vs. high-meaning/low-salary job); F’s(1, 302) > 5.57; p’s < .019 (see Supplemental Material for additional results). Expected happiness did not differ between jobs, F(1, 302) = 0.91; p = .34. Controlling for negative work environment, coworker support, autonomy, pride, job satisfaction, happiness, and counterbalanced rating order (using SPSS MIXED), job interest significantly differed between jobs, F(1, 400) = 18.66, p < .001.
Work Orientations
Logistic regressions examined if work orientations predicted relative preferences. Calling orientations predicted higher preferences for the high-meaning/low-salary job (coded = 1), b(se) = 0.27(0.12), OR = 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [1.04, 1.64], p = .023. In contrast, preferences for the high-salary/low-meaning job (coded = 0) were predicted by job orientations, b(se) = −0.46(0.13), OR = 0.63, 95% CI = [0.50, 0.81], and career orientations; b(se) = −0.40(0.12), OR = 0.67, 95% CI = [0.53, 0.85]; p’s
Preferences Across Expected Salary Values
As shown in Figure 4, preferences for the high-salary/low-meaning job decreased at higher expected salary levels, χ2(22, N = 304) = 50.02, p = .001, suggesting that preferring more meaningful work (vs. money) is more common at very high salaries. This could be because the “low” salaries were still relatively high and thus enabled good living standards or because the US$40,000 gap between high/low salaries represented smaller percentage differences than at low expected salary levels so there was a comparatively lower perceived monetary loss to prioritize meaningful work.
Percentage of Participants Choosing the High-Meaning/Low-Salary and High-Salary/Low-Meaning Jobs by Expected Salary Level, Study 3a.
Brief Discussion
Using a new participant-tailored salary manipulation, Study 3a demonstrated that more people preferred a high-salary/low-meaning job (vs. a high-meaning/low-salary job) in a sample of working professionals with high incomes, showing relative preferences are not limited to participants with low current incomes. A sizable minority of participants (42%) preferred the high-meaning/low-salary job (vs. high-salary/low-meaning job), indicating that some people may prioritize meaningful work despite financial sacrifices, particularly when evaluating potential jobs with high salaries (Figure 4). Differences in job preferences were smaller than in Study 2 (Figure 2), which may be attributed to Study 3a’s higher average salary used for job comparisons. At low expected-salary levels, relative preferences for the high-salary/low-meaning job (Figure 4) were more similar to Study 2’s Mturk sample.
Study 3a showed that many people prefer higher wages over meaningful work even when considering “low” job salaries that would likely enable a good quality of life. Study 3a participants’ modal expected salary was US$120,000 so for many participants the “low salary” highly meaningful (but less preferable) job had a US$100,000 salary. Thus, relative preferences for high salaries are unlikely to be fully explained by participants’ desire to avoid the pitfalls of an objectively low salary (e.g., US$40,000 or US$30,000, Studies 1 and 2).
Study 3b
Studies 1 to 3a suggested that people have stronger relative preferences for high-salary jobs lacking meaning compared with highly meaningful jobs with lower salaries. Salary differences in these studies were large, ranging from US$35,000 (Study 1) to US$45,000 (Study 2), just as differences in manipulated levels of meaningful work (highly meaningful job vs. job lacking meaning) were. Despite attempting to manipulate salary and meaningful work at similar high/low levels, mean differences in salary desirability and perceptions of meaningful work across studies suggest that participants may have perceived greater differences in salary desirability between the jobs than in meaningful work. The low-salary job may have been considered too aversive based on participants’ expected earnings, causing lower interest in the job despite it being highly meaningful due to loss aversion. Although loss aversion could similarly reduce interest in the low-meaning job, it may be more salient for quantifiable job attributes like salary.
Using salary values tailored to participants’ expected salary (as in Study 3a), Study 3b aimed to demonstrate that people will still prefer a high-salary job lacking meaning compared with a highly meaningful, “low” salary job with their expected salary if they were to seek a job. Thus, the low-salary job did not involve a perceived loss to participants, as it may have in earlier studies. The salary for the high-salary job was US$25,000 greater than participants’ expected salary (i.e., the “low” salary), a smaller salary gap than in Studies 1 to 3a. If Study 3b’s results are similar to Studies 1 to 3a’s results, this would suggest that people’s relative preferences for the high-salary/low-meaning job (vs. the high-meaning/low-salary job) are not simply explained by loss aversion or the specific, large salary differences between jobs in Studies 1 to 3a.
Method
Participants (N = 546; 56% women, 42.6% men, 1.5% other gender identities; age M(SD) = 40.36(10.67)) who were employed full-time (
Job descriptions (higher-salary/low-meaning; high-meaning/lower-salary; both presented next to each other on the screen), and ratings were presented in counterbalanced order. Order did not influence job selection, χ2(1, N = 546) = 3.56, p = .059. Meaningful work descriptions were consistent with those in earlier studies.
Salary Values
As in Study 3a, participants selected the salary they thought they could realistically earn at their next job, ranging from US$10,000 or less per year to US$150,000 or more per year (US$10,000 increments). These values were used because they captured Mturkers’ likely expected salaries (vs. the higher range of salaries used with Study 3a’s sample with higher incomes). Responses ranged from US$20,000 per year (3.3% participants) to US$150,000 or more per year (3.8% participants); mode = US$50,000, median = US$60,000. The salary for the high-salary job was US$25,000 greater than participants’ expected salary, whereas the low-salary job was equal to participants’ expected salary. Participants who selected expected salaries above US$150,000 were given high/low salaries deviating from US$150,000.
Job Evaluations: Job Interest, Meaningful Work, and Salary Desirability
Participants selected which job they would be more likely to apply for and then rated job interest, meaningful work, and salary desirability using the items from Study 3 (see Table 2). Current levels of meaningful work at one’s job were rated for exploratory purposes (see Supplemental Material).
Results
Compared with the high-salary/low-meaning job, the high-meaning/low-salary job had higher expected meaningfulness, M(SD) = 6.04(0.80) (vs. M(SD) = 3.40(1.32) for high-salary/low-meaning job), paired t(545) = 36.64, p < .001, d = 1.57; and a less desirable salary, M(SD) = 4.78(1.29) (vs. M(SD) = 6.30(0.78) for high-salary/low-meaning job), paired t(545) = 25.69, p < .001, d = 1.10. The effect size for salary desirability was smaller here than in earlier studies, demonstrating the smaller salary gap lowered perceived differences between jobs.
As predicted, when selecting between jobs, 63.9% of participants preferred the high-salary/low-meaning job, whereas only 36.1% of participants preferred the high-meaning/low-salary job with their expected salary, a significant difference, χ2(1, N = 546) = 42.32, p < .001 (Figure 2). Participants expressed relatively high overall interest in both jobs on continuous ratings, for high-salary/low-meaning job, M(SD) = 5.61(1.34); for high-meaning/low-salary job, M(SD) = 5.52(1.25); paired t(545) = 1.17, p = .24, d = 0.05. Although the continuous job interest ratings were in theoretically-predicted directions for each job, they did not significantly differ here in this study where there was high power to detect effects. This may be attributed to the smaller salary gap between jobs in Study 3b (vs. earlier studies). At smaller salary gaps, more people may prefer the high-salary/low-meaning job over the high-meaning/low-salary job, but nevertheless people may view both jobs as highly appealing.
Preferences differed by expected salary levels, χ2(13, N = 546) = 27.03, p = .012 (Figure 5). At higher expected salary levels, relative preferences were stronger for the high-meaning/low-salary job paying wages consistent with one’s expected salary.
Percentage of Participants Choosing the High-Meaning/Low-Salary and High-Salary/Low-Meaning Jobs by Expected Salary Level, Study 3b.
Brief Discussion
Studies 3a and 3b demonstrate that more people prefer a high-salary/low-meaning job than a high-meaning/low-salary job when evaluating jobs with high/low salaries tailored to participants’ specific reference points. These relative preferences emerged in diverse participant samples with substantially different expected salaries (mode = US$120,000 for Study 3a vs. US$50,000 for Study 3b) and different salary gaps for comparison (US$40,000 in Study 3a vs. US$25,000 in Study 3b). These results demonstrate that it is not simply loss aversion or the specific salary values used in earlier studies that explain people’s relative preferences.
In Studies 3a and 3b, participants exhibited stronger relative preferences for meaningful work at higher expected salary levels, which may be due to a stronger motivation for meaningful work once basic needs are met (Maslow, 1958) or because the fixed US$25,000 gap across the high/low salary jobs meant that participants faced lower financial sacrifices for preferring meaningful work at higher expected salaries (e.g., US$150,000 vs. US$175,000; US$50,000 vs. US$75,000).
Study 4 investigated mechanisms that may explain differences in job interest.
Study 4
Study 4 participants were randomly assigned to rate one of two jobs (high-salary/low-meaning vs. high-meaning/low-salary) on several dimensions. Although Study 3a suggested that both jobs led to comparable levels of forecasted happiness, the general happiness measure may not have captured more nuanced forecasts of personal happiness that shape job interest. People may exhibit stronger relative preferences for high salaries over meaningful work because they believe that money will be more conducive to a good life outside of work. High incomes are thought to enhance happiness and meaning in life (Aknin et al., 2009; Ward & King, 2019). Study 4 tested whether forecasts of how jobs will affect happiness and meaning outside of work will mediate the effect of condition (high-salary/low-meaning vs. high-meaning/low-salary job) on job interest. General happiness and meaning in life were measured to examine potential differences in well-being forecasts overall versus outside of work.
Method
Participants from Mturk (N = 399; 53% women, 47% men; age M(SD) = 39.70(12.04)) were randomly assigned to the high-salary/low-meaning job (n = 201) or the high-meaning/low-salary job (n = 198) condition (descriptions consistent with earlier studies; Table 2). 10 The high/low salaries were US$75,000 and US$30,000, respectively, consistent with salaries used in Study 2’s Mturk sample. 11
Job Evaluations: Job Interest, Meaningful Work, and Salary Desirability
Participants rated job interest, meaningful work, salary desirability (Table 2 displays items, which are consistent with earlier studies, and descriptives), and potential mediators (Supplemental Material includes items and intercorrelations).
Well-Being Forecasts
Three items captured expected happiness and fulfillment outside of work (e.g., “I would be happy with my life outside of work if I had this job”; M(SD) = 4.69(1.53); α = .94). Two items assessed expected meaning outside of work (e.g., “This job would enable me to have a meaningful life outside of work”; M(SD) = 4.64(1.49); α = .92). These five items loaded on the same factor (1 eigenvalue explaining 86% of variance) and were all strongly correlated (r’s > .77, p’s < .001), so, as preregistered, they were aggregated for analyses (M(SD) = 4.67(1.47); α = .96). Key results exhibit the same pattern of significance when these measures are analyzed separately.
Expected general happiness was captured with the item from Study 3; M(SD) = 4.45(1.59). Expected meaning in life was assessed with responses to the item, “My life would feel meaningful if I had this job”; M(SD) = 4.20(1.67). These items were strongly related, r = .71, p < .001, but were analyzed separately to examine potential distinctions.
Results
Participants in the high-meaning/low-salary job condition rated the job as having a less desirable salary and higher work meaningfulness than participants in the high-salary/low-meaning job condition; for salary desirability: t(397) = 19.60, d = 1.96; for meaningfulness: t(397) = 14.36, d = 1.44 (Figure 6); p’s < .001.
Job Ratings by Experimental Condition (High-Meaning/Low-Salary Job Versus High-Salary/Low-Meaning Job), Study 4.
Job interest was higher for the high-salary/low-meaning job condition than the high-meaning/low-salary job condition; t(397) = 3.97, p < .001, d = 0.40 (Figure 6). Consistent with expectations, the high-salary/low-meaning job was believed to enable higher happiness and meaning outside of work than the high-meaning/low-salary job; t(397) = 9.15, p < .001, d = 0.92. Expected happiness and meaning outside of work was positively correlated with job interest, r = .56, p < .001 (across conditions).
Results for general happiness and meaning in life slightly differed. The high-salary/low-meaning job had significantly higher ratings of expected general happiness, t(397) = 3.21, d = 0.32, but lower ratings of expected general meaning in life, t(397) = 5.80, d = 0.58; p’s
To evaluate if forecasts of happiness and meaning outside of work accounted for why participants expressed higher interest in the high-salary/low-meaning job, it was entered into PROCESS mediation model with 10,000 bootstrapped resamplings (Model 4; Hayes, 2022) predicting job interest from condition (0 = high-meaning/low-salary; 1 = high-salary/low-meaning). As predicted, expected happiness and meaning outside of work significantly mediated the effect of condition on job interest, indirect effect = 0.82, 95% CI = [0.60, 1.06] (see Figure 7 for coefficients).
Mediation Model, Study 4.
Exploratory analyses showed that expected general happiness partially mediated condition’s effect on job interest, indirect effect = 0.42, 95% CI = [0.17, 0.67]; direct effect for condition, b(se) = 0.24(0.10), p = .02. This was unexpected, as forecasted general happiness did not differ between jobs in Study 3a (see the Supplemental Material for a discussion of inconsistent results for general happiness).
Brief Discussion
Participants expressed stronger interest in the high-salary/low-meaning job because they believed it would be more beneficial to their personal well-being outside of work (vs. participants who rated the high-meaning/low-salary job). Study 5 further examined this mechanism.
Study 5
Study 5 investigated if manipulating expected happiness and meaning outside of work would help mitigate differences in job interest between the high-meaning/low-salary and high-salary/low meaning-jobs. Directly manipulating expectations of how a job will shape personal well-being can provide stronger causal evidence that these forecasts help explain condition differences in job interest. If people erroneously forecast that income is paramount to well-being, they may overlook highly meaningful, fulfilling jobs involving lower salaries. Raising awareness that a happy, meaningful life can be experienced even with a low salary was expected to heighten the desirability of highly meaningful work accompanied by modest wages because it may counteract beliefs that high salaries are paramount for well-being (Aknin et al., 2009; Ward & King, 2016, 2019).
Study 5 included the same two job conditions as Study 4 and a third high-meaning, low-salary job condition where expected happiness and meaning outside of work was manipulated. Forecasts of well-being outside of work were expected to shape job interest, leading to higher interest in the high-meaning/low-salary job (comparable to interest in the high-salary/low-meaning job) when this job was described as enabling happiness and meaning outside of work compared with when such information was excluded).
Method
Participants from Mturk (N = 850; 53% women, 46% men, 1% genderqueer/nonbinary; age M(SD) = 41.67(13.14)) were randomly assigned to evaluate the: high-salary/low-meaning job (n = 285); high-meaning/low-salary job (standard description; “HMLSJ: standard”; n = 288); or high-meaning/low-salary job enabling a happy, meaningful life outside of work ( “HMLSJ: enabling personal well-being”; n = 277), which stated: “You think this job would enable you to have a happy, meaningful life outside of work.” at the end of the job description, but was otherwise identical to the HMLSJ: standard job. The high/low salaries were US$75,000 and US$30,000, respectively (consistent with Studies 2 and 4 using Mturk samples).
Job Evaluations: Job Interest, Meaningful Work, and Salary Desirability
Participants rated job interest, meaningful work, and salary desirability (Table 2 displays items, consistent with earlier studies, and descriptives). The Supplemental Material includes variable intercorrelations.
Well-Being Forecasts
Expected happiness and meaning outside of work was measured as a manipulation check (5 item measure from Study 4; M(SD) = 4.58(1.57); α = .97).
Results
As shown in Figure 8, conditions significantly differed on job interest, F(2, 847) = 14.99; η2 = .034; expected happiness and meaning outside of work, F = 63.06; η2 = .13, meaningful work, F = 182.09; η2 = .30, and salary desirability, F = 250.85; η2 = .37; all p’s < .001. Planned contrasts were used to test key predictions. Consistent with Study 4, compared with the HMLSJ: standard condition (coded −1), the high-salary, low-meaning condition (coded +1), expressed higher levels of job interest, t(847) = 5.44, d = 0.37, and expected happiness and meaning outside of work, t(847) = 10.60, d = 0.73; p’s < .001. As hypothesized, compared with the HMLSJ: standard condition (coded −1), the HMLSJ: enabling personal well-being condition (coded +1), expressed higher job interest, t(847) = 3.24, d = 0.22, and expected happiness and meaning outside of work, t(847) = 8.46, d = 0.58; p’s
Job Ratings by Experimental Condition, Study 5.
Exploratory analyses (using post hoc Bonferroni multiple comparisons) showed that job interest and expected happiness and meaning outside of work did not differ between the high-salary/low-meaning job and the HMLSJ: enabling personal well-being conditions, p’s > .09.
A multi-categorical mediation model (Model 4, Hayes, 2022; Supplemental Material shows full path model) demonstrated that expected happiness and meaning outside of work mediated the relationship between condition (HMLSJ: standard condition as comparison baseline) and job interest; indirect effects for the HMLSJ: enabling personal well-being condition vs. other conditions = 0.81; 95% CI = [0.61, 1.02]; indirect effects for the high-salary/low-meaning job condition vs. other conditions = 1.006; 95% CI = [0.80, 1.21]. Thus, expected well-being outside of work mediates differences in job interest across conditions.
Brief Discussion
Study 5 suggests that forecasts that money promotes happiness and meaning outside of work may lead to lower interest in low-salary jobs that are highly meaningful. People may prioritize meaningful work despite lower salaries if they consider that a happy, meaningful life is still possible with low wages.
Study 6a
Study 6a investigated if people would have stronger relative preferences for higher pay over more meaningful work when evaluating their current jobs. Perhaps, financial concerns outweigh meaningful work in evaluations of prospective jobs, but meaningful work may be more strongly desired when people consider their current jobs due to a greater understanding of valued job characteristics. Nevertheless, higher compensation may still be preferred over more meaningful work when people evaluate their current jobs, as concrete considerations have heightened salience for near future (vs. distant) events (Trope & Liberman, 2003). If high compensation is believed to promote personal well-being (Studies 4 and 5), people may prefer higher compensation over more meaningful work when evaluating which attribute they would increase in their current job.
In Study 6a, each day during a work week, people in diverse occupations reflected on their current workday and then rated whether they would choose to have higher pay, more meaningful work, or work that enables greater social impact. Social impact, a core component of meaningful work, was included as a response option because it was believed to capture a common, concrete way that people often think about and experience meaningful work (e.g., Dik et al., 2013; Steger et al., 2012). Meaningful work may be perceived as abstract or subjective, potentially explaining why it could be valued less than higher compensation. It was valuable to pit preferences for higher pay against both meaningful work, broadly, and social impact to provide more evidence that preferences for higher pay would predominate over meaningful work in people’s evaluations of their current jobs. People were expected to express higher preferences for higher pay relative to more meaningful work or social impact. 12
Unlike in earlier studies, in Study 6a, meaningful work and salary were not manipulated at specific high/low levels and participants could choose to increase either job attribute (vs. baseline levels) without an inherent reduction in the other attribute. If people find lower pay more aversive than meaningless work or preferred higher pay due to the specific, large salary differences used in manipulations, this would help explain earlier findings. However, if more people still prefer higher pay versus more meaningful work or greater social impact in their current jobs in Study 6a, this would provide additional evidence for the robustness of people’s relative preferences for higher salaries.
People earning low salaries may understandably prefer higher pay over more meaningful work. As a stricter test of our hypothesis, Study 6a evaluated job preferences among working professionals with high personal incomes (median = US$100,001–US$150,000; 30% earning
Method
Participants were full-time working professionals recruited from a university research pool who completed this study for research participation credit (earned for completing
Participants received surveys (including measures for other projects) via email for 5 consecutive workdays (Monday-Friday) at 4 pm in their time zone and were asked to complete them after finishing their workday. Survey links expired after 6 hours to enhance memory accuracy for the current workday.
Job Evaluations
Participants considered their work experiences that day and then chose which of the following they would want in their current job: work that feels more meaningful, work that has a greater social impact, or higher compensation. Forced choice selections were used to avoid reports indicating a desire to maximize all work dimensions.
Results and Brief Discussion
Collapsing across workdays, people reported desiring higher salaries in 54.3% of reports, desiring more meaningful work in 32% of reports, and desiring work having a greater social impact in 13.7% of reports. Differences between these preferences were significant, χ2(2, N = 903) = 223.24, p < .001. More people desired a higher salary compared with more meaningful work, z = 9.57, or making a greater social impact, z = 18.21, p’s < .001. More people desired more meaningful work (broadly and subjectively perceived) than making a greater social impact, z = 9.26, p < .001.
Preferences for job attributes did not significantly differ by weekday, χ2(8, N = 903) = 4.30, p = .83. Preferences for higher salaries (coded as 1) versus more meaningful work or social impact (coded as 0) were strongly correlated within people across all observations (r’s = .67 to .87, p’s < .001), suggesting relative preferences had high stability across (the work week) and within people during the week (see Supplemental Material for detailed results). People who valued higher salaries (vs. meaningful work/social impact) on a given workday were inclined to express similar preferences on other workdays.
Analyses probed if preferences for higher salaries would predominate over meaningful work and social impact for participants with high incomes (see Supplemental Material for analyses involving financial security). Among United States-based participants (reporting income in US dollars), job preferences significantly differed across participants’ eight bracketed income categories (
Preferences for Different Job Attributes by Personal Income, Study 6a.
Study 6b
Study 6b sought to further demonstrate that more working adults prefer higher pay than more meaningful work in their current jobs using a sample with variable socioeconomic status (vs. Study 6a’s sample with high earnings). Participants expressed their preference for higher pay versus more meaningful work overall in their current job, rather than on each workday, due to the lack of between-day variability observed in Study 6a. Greater social impact was not included as a response option to simplify analyses and because it was less desirable than meaningful work (broadly) in Study 6a.
If more workers prefer higher pay relative to more meaningful work in their current jobs in Study 6b, this would corroborate that such relative preferences extend to evaluations of actual jobs and thus might inform job retention and other job attitudes.
Method and Job Evaluations
Participants (recruited via Prolific) employed at least 40 hours weekly (N = 396; 49.5% women, 49.3% men, 1.2% genderqueer/nonbinary; age M(SD) = 37.96(11.39)) chose which of the following they would want more of in their current job: work that feels more meaningful or higher pay.
Results
When selecting which job attribute they would prefer more of in their current job, 72.7% of participants preferred higher pay, whereas 27.3% preferred work that feels more meaningful, a significant difference, χ2(1, N = 396) = 81.82, p < .001.
Job preferences did not significantly differ across participants’ personal income categories (
Preferences for Meaningful Work Versus Higher Pay by Personal Income, Study 6b.
Brief Discussion
In Studies 6a and 6b, when reflecting on their current job, people were more inclined to wish they had a higher salary, rather than more meaningful work. These results reveal that preferences for high salaries over more meaningful work are not only evident in hypothetical job evaluations, but also extend to evaluations of current jobs, even among workers with high incomes (Study 6a), suggesting the results of Studies 1 to 5 are not simply explained by loss aversion to a low-salary job.
General Discussion
This research illustrates people’s stronger relative job preferences for high salary versus meaningful work. Although meaningful work and salary are highly valued job attributes (Preliminary Studies 1a-1c in Supplemental Material; Gallup, 2019), when presented with sizable tradeoffs between these job attributes, most participants prioritized high salary more than highly meaningful work (Studies 1-5). Similarly, more workers preferred to increase their salary rather than have more meaningful work (Studies 6a and 6b). High salaries were preferred over more meaningful work across evaluations of hypothetical and actual jobs and in diverse samples of working professionals and younger and older adults who were primarily located in the United States. Salaries predominated over meaningful work in job evaluations because of people’s forecasts that high salary would be conducive to a happy, meaningful personal life (Studies 4 and 5).
These studies may help explain why meaningful work is infrequently experienced, despite being increasingly desired and integral to career values (e.g., Gallup, 2019). Although people report willingness to accept a lower salary for a highly meaningful (vs. meaningless) job (Hu & Hirsh, 2017), these results suggest that if given the option, many people may prefer a meaningless job with a much higher salary compared with a highly meaningful job with a lower salary, assuming salary differences range from US$25,000 to US$45,000 (as in the present studies). Studies 1 to 5 compared evaluations of jobs with very low and high salaries, primarily using values representing the 25th and 75th percentile of workers’ incomes in the United States (Studies 2, 4, and 5). Results were largely consistent across studies using comparisons of high/low salary values, participant-tailored reference points (Studies 3a and 3b), and no specific salaries mentioned (Studies 6a and 6b). Future research should examine more varied gaps in salary and meaningful work to identify how relative preferences might shift as tradeoffs differ (see Supplemental Material for relevant exploratory analyses).
Because people strongly value both meaningful work and high salaries (Preliminary Studies 1a-1c in Supplemental Material; Gallup, 2019; Spence, 1973), participants likely perceived jobs involving low meaning or low salary as suboptimal compared with their desired job (see Study 4’s exploratory analyses in Supplemental Material). People might prioritize high compensation because they are more sensitive to financial losses than to reductions in meaningful work, perhaps because salary is more easily quantifiable. Across studies, relative preferences for high salaries (vs. meaningful work) were not explained simply by loss aversion to low salaries or to salaries lower than one’s expectations. More people preferred a higher salary job lacking meaning than a highly meaningful job with their baseline salary expectation (Study 3b), showing preferences emerge even when people consider jobs involving no potential loss of salary. Similarly, people across varying income levels—rather than just people with low incomes—generally preferred higher pay over more meaningful work when evaluating their current jobs (Studies 6a and 6b).
The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated unemployment, inequality, and financial insecurity (Gould & Kandra, 2022). Although the pandemic could have contributed to enhanced relative preferences for high pay, studies conducted before the pandemic (Study 2 and Preliminary Study 2 described in the Supplemental Material) exhibit largely consistent results with those conducted during it (Studies 1, 3-6b), suggesting that these results are not solely pandemic-driven. It may seem rational to prioritize high salary over meaningful work in environments where concerns about poverty and living expenses abound.
Erroneous Well-Being Forecasts
Financial resources and financial self-efficacy are correlated with meaning in life and life satisfaction (e.g., Ward & Kim, in press; Ward & King, 2016, 2019). However, people greatly exaggerate income’s importance for well-being (Aknin et al., 2009; Cohen et al., 2019; Ward & King, 2016, 2019). Studies 4 and 5 illustrated how well-being forecasts affect job preferences, demonstrating that people forecast having happier, more meaningful personal lives outside of work if they have high-salary jobs with low meaning versus high-meaning/low-salary jobs (Figures 6 and 8), which helped account for condition differences in job interest. These forecasts could lead people to sacrifice highly meaningful, but lower-wage work in favor of high-paying work lacking meaning. As Study 5 demonstrated, people may prioritize meaningful work despite lower salaries if they consider having happy, meaningful lives with low wages.
Having an income sufficient to meet one’s needs is conducive to personal well-being, but additional salary increases may offer negligible well-being benefits, especially if one has work lacking meaning (e.g., Sheldon & Krieger, 2014; Ward & King, 2019). People with high-paying jobs lacking meaning may struggle to feel fulfilled, feeling their work stymies personal growth. Work lacking meaning may make people too tired and frustrated to use their discretionary income in ways that promote well-being (e.g., experiential purchases).
Individual Differences
Across studies, some people still preferred highly meaningful work even when it entailed lower wages. In Study 3a, calling orientations were linked to stronger relative preferences for meaningful work (consistent with Bunderson & Thompson, 2009), whereas job and career orientations predicted stronger preferences for high salaries. Life stages, financial security, and debt may also guide preferences.
Exploratory analyses (Studies 3a, 3b, 6a, and 6b) suggest that meaningful work may be more strongly valued at higher salary levels, consistent with Maslow’s hierarchical needs theory (Maslow, 1958). These studies did not have sufficient power to detect differences in relative preferences across income levels so more research is needed to address this possibility. Most people worldwide earn relatively low wages so meaningful work may often be less influential to career decisions than pay. Many people earning low incomes still prioritize meaningful work over higher earnings so individual motivational styles matter (see Supplemental Material; e.g., Lussier, 2019).
Implications
These studies underscore the value of understanding preferences for meaningful work relative to other valued job attributes, which has received limited scholarly focus. Focusing steadfastly on high compensation—an extrinsic reward—rather than on meaningful, intrinsically rewarding work could lead to reduced motivation, work engagement, job satisfaction, and well-being (e.g., Dittmar et al., 2014). Pursuing meaningful work is more likely to sustainably benefit well-being because it enables the satisfaction of basic, intrinsic needs (Dittmar et al., 2014; Martela & Riekki, 2018; Ward & King, 2017). Having meaningful work may promote well-being even if it involves lower compensation (Sheldon & Krieger, 2014).
People do not always face inherent tradeoffs between salary and meaningful work like the choices investigated in Studies 1 to 5. Salary and meaning can be compatible (Cho & Jiang, 2021; Ward & Kim, in press; Ward & King, 2016, 2019). People with higher educational attainment might be especially likely to have career options with variable salaries (e.g., researchers pursuing academic vs. industry careers, Sauermann & Roach, 2014; lawyers pursuing money vs. service-focused positions, Sheldon & Krieger, 2014). It would be valuable to examine how much people prioritize meaningful work when choosing between distinct career paths with differential salaries and the subsequent implications of such choices.
People do not have to choose between meaningful and meaningless work. Meaning is highly subjective (e.g., Ward & King, 2017). There is considerable overlap between jobs considered highly meaningful and meaningless (Hu & Hirsh, 2017). Workers can be proactive about fostering meaningful work when it is lacking, such as by engaging in job crafting techniques (e.g., mentoring colleagues, learning new skills), cognitively reframing work in more meaningful ways, or by pursuing meaningful personal hobbies. Meaningful work is commonly experienced in many low-salary and low-prestige occupations, such as zookeepers and home caretakers (e.g., Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Stacey, 2005). People can derive meaning from completing tasks that are frequently avoided and stigmatized (“dirty work”) by recognizing the critical social contributions facilitated by one’s work (e.g., Stacey, 2005). If people think they need high-salary jobs to have happy, meaningful lives they may overlook lower-paying occupations that have substantial societal importance.
These findings suggest that organizations should pay reasonable wages to attract interest and that people are generally unlikely to pursue low-wage occupations even if they are highly meaningful, assuaging concern of workers’ vulnerability to managerial exploitation in pursuit of deeply meaningful work (e.g., Bunderson & Thompson, 2009). Paradoxically, prioritizing meaningful work over compensation could promote future financial success despite involving potential short-term compensation sacrifices because of meaningful work’s links to performance and motivation (Steger et al., 2013; Ward & King, 2017; cf. Cho & Jiang, 2021).
Limitations and Future Directions
Results were largely consistent across these diverse samples of working professionals, adults recruited online, and undergraduate students. Most participants were from the United States so future research would benefit from studying culturally diverse samples. U.S. samples might prioritize money due to the lack of broad government-sponsored benefits common in other industrialized countries (e.g., universal health care).
Mturk participants were recruited for Studies 2, 3b, 4, and 5 because they have more comparable incomes to the broader U.S. population than other convenience samples (Litman & Robinson, 2020). Mturk participants’ low average incomes may inform their strong relative preferences for high salaries, which may be similar to the average American adult’s preferences. Although participants’ income was either weakly related or unrelated to job preferences across studies (see Supplemental Material), future research may benefit from examining how financial resources shape relative preferences for meaningful work. Participants recruited online (e.g., Mturk) could have earnings, employment rates, or motivation that differs from the general population. Although participants willing to complete studies for payment could have elevated extrinsic motivation, similar relative preferences emerged in studies where participants received research participation credit rather than compensation.
These studies investigated self-reported job preferences, which predict subsequent career decisions and behaviors (e.g., Arcidiacono et al., 2012). People preferred higher compensation versus more meaningful work when evaluating their current jobs (Studies 6a and 6b), consistent with preferences for future jobs. It is valuable to investigate how relative preferences for meaningful work (vs. other job attributes) shape actual job applications and career decisions, as preferences may differ from these findings.
Conclusion
This research suggests that people may sacrifice highly meaningful work for a much higher salary if given the option. The connection between compensation and meaningful work is a ripe area for future research with important implications for well-being and motivation.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-psp-10.1177_01461672231159781 – Supplemental material for Choosing Money Over Meaningful Work: Examining Relative Job Preferences for High Compensation Versus Meaningful Work
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-psp-10.1177_01461672231159781 for Choosing Money Over Meaningful Work: Examining Relative Job Preferences for High Compensation Versus Meaningful Work by Sarah Ward in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Jack Goncalo, Jeff Loewenstein, Jon Jachimowicz, Milla Titova, Roshni Raveendhran, and Mike Corcoran for valuable feedback on initial drafts of this manuscript.
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.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material is available online with this article.
Notes
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
