Prevalence and Demographic Differences in Work as a Calling in the United States: Results From a Nationally Representative Sample

Abstract

Within the last two decades, social science research on work as a calling has rapidly grown. To date, knowledge regarding prevalence and demographic differences of calling in the United States derives from data collected mainly from regionally limited and/or occupationally homogenous samples. The present study used data from the Portraits of American Life Study, a nationally stratified panel study of religion in the United States (U.S.), to estimate calling’s prevalence in the U.S. Our findings represent the first known population estimates of seeking, perceiving, and living a calling in the U.S. Results revealed that calling is a relevant concept for many U.S. adults, with 43% endorsing “mostly true” or “totally true” to the statement “I have a calling to a particular kind of work.” Small differences for presence of and search for a calling emerged across age groups, employment statuses, and levels of importance of God or spirituality. For living a calling, significant differences were identified only for importance of God or spirituality, contrasting with previous findings that suggested that living a calling varies as a function of income and social status. Implications for research and practice are explored.

Keywords

prevalence demographic differences calling nationally representative meaningful work

Many people consider the construct of calling to be relevant to their working lives. This is evident according to research with university students (e.g., Duffy & Sedlacek, 2010) and working adults (e.g., Duffy et al., 2013), which has suggested that 43%–45% report it is mostly or totally true that they have a calling to a particular kind of work. Discourse on calling has long permeated religion and philosophy (Hardy, 1990) but has only recently received attention in the social sciences (see Dik & Duffy, 2009). Psychological research on calling has sought to articulate its definition, develop scales to measure it, and examine its relationships with other work attitudes (e.g., career maturity, job satisfaction) and well-being variables (e.g., life meaning, life satisfaction), establishing a foundation for more sophisticated research designs (see Thompson & Bunderson, 2019).

Efforts to examine prevalence and demographic differences in seeking and perceiving a calling in the U.S. have so far been limited by relatively homogeneous convenience samples. This has led scholars to call for further research with more diverse and representative samples (Duffy & Autin, 2013; Duffy & Sedlacek, 2010). Indeed, previous studies (e.g., Duffy, Autin, et al., 2015) are a helpful starting point but have not offered direct population estimates of calling. It is possible to obtain population estimates from a nationally representative sample, if weighted frequencies derived through census data are used to allow sample data to reflect estimates of broader population characteristics (Emerson et al., 2010). We sought to provide direct population estimates for prevalence of and demographic differences in calling in the continental U.S. by using weighted frequencies on data drawn from the Portraits of American Life Study (PALS), a nationally representative, stratified panel study of U.S. adults (Emerson et al., 2010).

Seeking, Perceiving, and Living a Calling

One ongoing challenge in research on calling is the lack of a consensus definition. Thompson and Bunderson (2019) found fourteen definitions of the construct in the literature, ranging along a continuum from “neoclassical” to “modern” (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Dik & Shimizu, 2019). Neoclassical definitions (e.g., Dik & Duffy, 2009) derive from calling’s historical backdrop and typically involve a transcendent summons, destiny, and/or prosocial attitudes. In contrast, modern definitions (e.g., Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas, 2011) emphasize a sense of passion or personal fulfillment. Efforts to refine these definitions have taken numerous forms. Shimizu and colleagues’ (2019) taxometric analysis evinced that the ways research participants understand calling vary as a matter of degree (i.e., along a continuum) rather than kind (i.e., as discrete types). Qualitative investigation has revealed calling to be multidimensional, although the proposed dimensions vary (Hagmaier & Abele, 2012; Hunter et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2015). Nevertheless, Dik et al.’s (2019) review of the literature suggested that across national and cultural contexts “the similarities in how calling is conceptualized and functions are more striking than the differences” (p. 58). Recently, Thompson and Bunderson (2019) invited calling researchers to operationalize a “transcendent calling” that equally weighs inner- and outer-focused qualities such as passion and prosocial duty. For purposes of this paper, we adopted Dik and Duffy’s (2009) conceptualization of calling as a transcendent summons toward purposeful work that contributes to the greater good.

Approaching work as a calling is typically considered an ongoing process rather than a milestone to be achieved (Dik et al., 2012). In exploring this ongoing process, scholars have differentiated between search for a calling (i.e., seeking ways to discover or implement one’s calling through work; also called “seeking a calling”), perceiving a calling (i.e., having discerned what one’s calling is; also called “presence of calling”), and living a calling (i.e., actualizing a calling through a currently held job; Duffy, Bott, et al., 2012). Logically, people must perceive a calling before recognizing they are living it out, but for various reasons, some people perceive a calling but do not feel they are living one. Correlations between perceiving a calling and living a calling suggest that although the constructs overlap, they are distinct (e.g., Duffy & Autin, 2013).

Gaining greater clarity on the prevalence of calling is useful in taking the nation’s pulse regarding who experiences this type of meaningful work, especially given accumulating evidence that calling is closely linked with positive work-related and well-being variables. For example, perceiving a calling is positively associated with vocational identity, vocational self-clarity, and comfort with one’s career choice (Duffy & Sedlacek, 2007; Hirschi & Herrmann, 2012, 2013; Steger et al., 2010). Many cross-sectional studies have found perceiving a calling is also positively correlated with career/organizational commitment and work engagement, as well as lower withdrawal/turnover intentions and absenteeism (Cardador et al., 2011; Duffy, Bott, et al., 2012; Duffy et al., 2013; Duffy, Allan, et al., 2011; Esteves & Lopes, 2017; Hirschi, 2012; Wrzesniewski et al., 1997; Xie et al., 2016). Numerous studies have corroborated presence of a calling’s relationship with job satisfaction (Harzer & Ruch, 2012; Peterson et al., 2009), with some suggesting that more proximal factors (e.g., career commitment and career adaptability) mediate this relationship (Duffy, Allan, et al., 2011; Duffy, Bott, et al., 2012; Xie et al., 2016). Steger et al. (2012) found a positive link between perceiving a calling and work meaningfulness, which other research has replicated (e.g., Dumulescu et al., 2015; Hirschi, 2012).

A small but growing body of longitudinal research has shed light on causal directions between calling and career criterion variables (e.g., Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas, 2011). Hirschi and Herrmann’s (2013) study of 846 German university students spanning three time points found that perceiving a calling was significantly related to later career preparation and career self-efficacy. Among Australian young adults, perceiving a calling predicted work effort and career adaptability at a 6-month follow-up (Praskova et al., 2014). Dobrow and Tosti-Kharas (2011) found perceiving a calling among musicians to predict professional identity clarity, career insight, career self-efficacy, and intent to pursue music professionally up to 7 years later. These results support the notion that calling precedes positive work outcomes, but a more recent longitudinal study found perceiving a calling was best positioned as an outcome of professional identity clarity (among other variables) rather than a predictor (Dalla Rosa et al., 2019). Similarly, a study with working adults found work meaningfulness and living a calling affected each other reciprocally over time (Duffy et al., 2014). Together, this research suggests calling and beneficial outcomes may mutually reinforce each other.

Beyond work-related outcomes, scholars have investigated how calling is related to broader well-being, especially life meaning and life satisfaction (e.g., Duffy & Sedlacek, 2010). Steger et al.’s (2010) examination of the role of religiousness in calling and well-being criterion variables among undergraduate students found that calling positively predicted life meaning, irrespective of level of religious commitment. Other studies have found similar moderate positive correlations between presence of a calling and life meaning (Duffy & Sedlacek, 2010; Duffy, Allan et al., 2012). Regarding life satisfaction, perceiving a calling has generally demonstrated weak-moderate correlations among students (Duffy & Sedlacek, 2010; Duffy, Manuel, et al., 2011; Steger et al., 2010) and working adults (e.g., Hagmaier & Abele, 2015).

A key finding within calling research—one that forms the basis of Work as a Calling Theory (WCT; Duffy, Dik, et al., 2018)—is the mediating link between perceiving a calling, living a calling, and outcomes (e.g., Duffy et al., 2013, 2016). That is, having a sense of calling is associated with outcomes because many people who perceive a calling take active steps toward living out that calling, and it is the experience of living a calling that is critical. Indeed, evidence suggests that working adults who perceive a calling do not seem to garner benefits in terms of career commitment or work meaningfulness unless they have a high degree of living a calling (Duffy, Bott, et al., 2012). Those with “unanswered” callings may even face negative outcomes, such as stress, frustration, and worse health (Berg et al., 2010; Gazica & Spector, 2015; but see Marsh et al., 2020). These patterns of relationships between calling and other constructs display calling’s role in accounting for variance in well-being at work and beyond.

The research reviewed above and summarized within WCT (Duffy, Dik, et al., 2018) suggests that those who perceive a calling and live that calling out experience numerous positive outcomes. However, WCT also includes access to opportunity as a predictor, noting that “systems of oppression such as racism, classism, sexism, and heterosexism constrain the employment opportunities available to people with marginalized social statuses” (Duffy, Dik, et al., 2018, p. 426). Indeed, individuals who face higher degrees of marginalization, economic constraints, and discrimination encounter more obstacles in their attempts to move from perceiving a calling to living it out (e.g., Duffy & Autin, 2013). The present study, with its goals of examining prevalence rates and demographic differences in endorsing calling, helps address important ground-level questions about the relevance of this view of work across the U.S. population. More importantly, it can identify population groups impeded by barriers that limit their experience of work as a calling, which is useful for directing new research investigating the nature of those barriers for those groups (e.g., Duffy et al., 2017). In turn, that research may offer guidance for the development of culturally sensitive, appropriate, and empowering interventions.

Research on Prevalence and Demographic Differences

Estimates of the overall prevalence of calling in the U.S. thus far are based on samples drawn from particular regions or industries. For example, using a categorical approach with a sample of non-faculty university employees, Wrzesniewski et al. (1997) found that approximately one-third of participants viewed their work as a calling. Multiple studies have recruited samples of adults from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). These studies have suggested that slightly under half of respondents perceive a calling, given 49% indicated “yes” when asked a “yes or no” question about if they have a calling (Duffy, Autin, et al., 2015), and 43% answered “mostly” or “totally” true when asked the extent to which the statement “I have a calling to a particular kind of work” is true (Duffy et al., 2013). Similarly, Duffy and Sedlacek (2010) found that 44% of incoming students to the University of Maryland responded “mostly” or “totally” true to that same statement. Still, Duffy and Sedlacek called for study of calling’s prevalence with more diverse, representative samples. Answering this by establishing direct population estimates of calling is a primary purpose of the present study. Using previous results as our guide, we expected that slightly under half of adults in the U.S. consider the statement “I have a calling to a particular kind of work” to be either mostly or totally true.

A second objective of the present study was to examine the extent to which demographic differences exist in rates of seeking, perceiving, and living a calling. Several efforts have also been made to discern demographic differences in the prevalence of calling. Duffy et al. (2013) found age to have no relationship with perceiving a calling and a very weak correlation with living a calling (r = .09). Duffy and Sedlacek (2010) identified no significant gender differences. Duffy et al.’s (2013) t tests displayed slightly higher levels of perceiving a calling for women (M = 6.70) than men (6.32) but found no gender differences on living a calling. Duffy and Sedlacek also found higher rates of calling among African Americans; however, the authors cautioned against assuming meaningful differences considering the small effect. In light of this, we hypothesized no significant differences in rates of presence of, search for, or living a calling across age groups, sex, or racial identifications when examined in a broader U.S. population.

Several studies have found that rates of perceiving a calling do not vary based on social status and income, but that rates of living a calling are reduced for those with indicators of lower economic/social class. For example, higher income and educational attainment has been linked to increased levels of living a calling among working adults, but perceiving a calling was unrelated to these variables (Duffy & Autin, 2013; Duffy et al., 2013). Likewise, the link between perceiving a calling and living a calling has been found to be stronger at higher levels of household income (Duffy, England, et al., 2017). Duffy et al. (2016) corroborated living a calling’s relationship with social class and educational attainment and found work volition, a variable linked to social class, may help enable individuals to live callings. This connection from social class to living a calling through work volition was replicated in a longitudinal study spanning 6 months (Duffy, Autin, et al., 2018). Furthermore, one’s perception of serving the greater good, an aspect germane to calling, has been shown to be lower among blue-collar working adults than among their white-collar counterparts (Lips-Wiersma et al., 2016), perhaps hinting at differences based on educational attainment. Informed by this pattern of results, we hypothesized that rates of presence of and search for a calling would not significantly differ across income levels or educational attainment, but rates of living a calling would be higher at higher levels of educational attainment and income.

Employment status has also been associated with some degree of variation in calling’s prevalence. Involuntarily unemployed adults have understandably demonstrated lower rates of living a calling than employed adults, yet no significant differences have been revealed for presence of a calling (e.g., Duffy, Bott, et al., 2015). Mixed-methods research revealed a variety of potential barriers arise in retirement that may prevent living a calling (Duffy, Torrey, et al, 2017), but that scores on perceiving a calling were at least as high as what is found in studies with working adults. Perceiving a calling has positive associations with career engagement among students (Shimizu et al., 2019), which may involve working to prepare for careers after graduation—yet because of the future focus on expressing their calling, students may be less likely to endorse living a calling currently, a possibility supported by indirect evidence (Zhang et al., 2018). Consistent with the patterns established in this research, we hypothesized that perceiving a calling would not differ across employment status categories, but that those who reported full- and part-time employment would have higher rates of living a calling than those with other statuses (e.g., student, retired, unemployed). Research on differences across groups is sparse for search for calling, but given the developmental tasks proposed at different career stages over the life course (Super, 1980), we hypothesized that search for calling would be highest among students and lowest among retirees.

Given calling’s religious historical roots, it is unsurprising research has connected religiousness and spirituality to calling. A study on a mostly Christian sample of employees found perceiving and seeking a calling to be associated with higher levels of religious/spiritual importance (Ponton et al., 2014). Calling has also been linked to spirituality among counselors and social workers (Hall et al., 2014; Hirsbrunner et al., 2012). Thus, we hypothesized that there would be higher rates of presence of, search for, and living a calling among (1) religiously affiliated individuals (irrespective of tradition) compared to individuals with no religious affiliation and (2) those who place greater relative importance on God or spirituality.

Method

Participants

Our sample consisted of 1,378 adults drawn from PALS Wave 2, a nationally representative panel study of the continental U.S. conducted in 2012. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of the sample identified as “female,” and the sample had a mean age of 46.7 years. Participants self-identified as White (53%), Black/African American (20%), Hispanic/Latino (15%), Asian/Asian American (7%), Pacific Islander (.5%), Native American (.3%), Mixed Race (3%), and Other (1%). For household income, 18% reported less than $20,000, 14% reported between $20,000 and $40,000, 35%, between $40,000 and $100,000, 19% reported above $100,000, and 14% did not respond. Participants reported employment statuses of full-time (48%), part-time (14%), retired (15%), homemaker (7%), student (3%), and unemployed (13%). Our sample had religious traditions of Catholic (24%), Evangelical Protestant (23%), Black Protestant (9%), Mainline Protestant (9%), Protestant Other (7%), Jewish (2%), and Other Faith (6%), while 20% reported no religious affiliation. For educational attainment, participants reported less than a high school degree (11%), a high school degree or GED (29%), vocational-technical degrees (8%), associate or 2-year religious degrees (17%), bachelor’s degrees (18%), master’s degrees (8%), or doctorate or professional degrees (6%), and “other” or did not disclose (3%).

Measures

Demographic measures

Participants disclosed sex, age, racial/ethnic identity, present household income, educational attainment, and political affiliation. PALS used two response options for participants to report sex: female or male. Participants provided racial/ethnic identity with response options of White/Anglo-American, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian/Asian American, Pacific Islander, Native American, Mixed Race, or Other. Household income was reported as < $20,000, $20,000-$40,000, $40,000-$100,000, or > $100,000. Participants’ educational attainment was assessed as: less than high school degree, GED, high school degree, vocational-technical degree, associate degree, bachelor’s degree, master’s/Master of Divinity, doctorate, professional degree, or other. Participants reported employment as full-time, part-time, retired, homemaker, student, unemployed, and/or other (please specify). Participants selected political affiliation as Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Something Else. Religious tradition was measured with options of Black Protestant, Evangelical Protestant, Mainline Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Other Faith, Non-affiliated, and “Protestant Other” (Emerson & Essenburg, 2013; Steensland et al., 2000). Participants reported how important God or spirituality was to them as “not at all,” “somewhat,” “very,” “extremely,” or “by far the most important part of my life.”

Presence of and search for a calling

Presence of and search for a calling were measured using the presence and search subscales of the four-item Brief Calling Scale (BCS; Dik et al., 2012). The presence subscale consists of “I have a calling to a particular kind of work” and “I have a good understanding of my calling as it applies to my career.” The search subscale used the items “I am trying to figure out my calling in my career” and “I am searching for my calling as it applies to my career.” Participants are provided five response options: not at all true of me, mildly true of me, moderately true of me, mostly true of me, or totally true of me. Dik et al. found BCS scores to correlate in expected directions with career decidedness, self-clarity, career decision self-efficacy, life meaning, intrinsic work motivation, and materialism. They also found the BCS to have strong convergent and discriminant validity using a multitrait, multimethod analysis with both self- and informant-report ratings. In an evaluation of calling measures, Duffy, Autin, et al. (2015) found the BCS to be the most accurate predictor of participants’ binary assessments of whether or not they had a calling. In our study, the two presence of a calling items strongly correlated (r = .79, p < .001) as did the two search for a calling items (r = .78, p < .001).

Living a calling

Living a calling was measured with one item from the Living a Calling Scale (LCS): “I am living out my calling in my job right now” (Duffy, Allan, et al., 2012). Participants responded across the same response options as for the BCS. Though this study used one item, the six-item LCS has high internal consistency (α = .85–.95; Duffy, Allan, et al., 2012, Duffy et al., 2013). Full-time employees, part-time employees, students, homemakers, unemployed, or those who selected “other,” were asked to consider calling with their “career as a whole” in mind. Retired individuals were told to apply calling to paid or unpaid work.

Sampling Procedure

This study used archived data that were collected in Wave 2 of PALS, a panel study designed to assess religious life in the U.S. PALS used probability sampling and made significant efforts to capture ethnic and racial diversity. In designing their four-stage sampling method, RTI International sought to reflect the civilian, non-institutionalized population of continental U.S. adults who speak English or Spanish (see Emerson et al., 2010, for a detailed description of the sampling strategy). In all, Wave 1 of PALS collected results from 2,610 respondents. For Wave 1 of the PALS, respondents were visited in their homes to be screened and, if deemed sufficiently competent to respond, interviewed. Participants were compensated with $50. Six years later, roughly half of the respondents from Wave 1 completed a second survey online (80%), by telephone (13%), or in-person (7%). Those interviewed by phone were compensated with $30, while the rest received $50. The researchers found minimal impact of interview format on responses. The survey inquired about demographic identifiers, calling, religious/spiritual beliefs, and many other variables. PALS also surveyed about 100 new respondents who were members of Wave 1 participants’ households that had reached adult age between waves. The final sample size for Wave 2 was 1,419 participants. Research using PALS Wave 2 has been conducted before (e.g., Perry, 2016), but our study’s analyses are novel. After accounting for missing data by removing all participant responses coded as “don’t know,” “not applicable” and “refused” for relevant variables, the present study involved 1,378 participants.

We used weighted frequencies derived from 2011 census data provided by PALS with the goal of representing direct population estimates at the time of data collection. Emerson et al. (2010) examined the sampling process and use of weighted percentages in Wave 1 of PALS and concluded the sample could be considered nationally representative. Perry (2016) found no evidence to suggest attrition between Wave 1 and Wave 2 led to biased sampling characteristics.

Analytic Approach

To conduct our analyses involving weighted frequencies, presence of, search for, and living a calling were recoded into binary variables. These items were all rated along a five-point scale: 1 = “not at all true of me,” 2 = “mildly true of me,” 3 = “moderately true of me,” 4 = “mostly true of me,” and 5 = “totally true of me.” The responses to the first two items of the BCS were summed to obtain a composite continuous presence score and the latter two items were summed to create a composite continuous search score, each ranging from two to ten. For each construct, a new binary variable was created in which individuals scoring from seven to ten on the associated continuous variable were assigned a one on the binary version of that variable, indicating high endorsement. Those below a seven were assigned a zero, suggesting low endorsement. For example, an individual who received an eight on the composite presence of a calling continuous variable would receive a one on the new presence of a calling binary variable, while an individual with a six on the presence of a calling continuous variable would receive a zero for the presence of a calling binary variable. For the living a calling item, responses of “not at all true of me,” mildly true of me,” or “moderately true of me” were assigned a zero and responses of “mostly true of me” or “totally true of me” were assigned a one. This procedure is similar to that used in earlier calling prevalence studies (e.g., Duffy & Sedlacek, 2010).

To enable comparisons across discrete groups, demographic variables were also recoded for analyses. We recoded age to be categorical with groups of 18–25, 26–40, 41–60, and 61 or older. The initial eight categories for race resulted in several cells being too small to produce reliable results. Rather than dropping these participants from the analysis, we collapsed the smallest categories, which were Pacific Islander, Native American, Mixed Race, and Other into a broader “Other” category. These categories did not appear to significantly differ in their scores on the calling variables. We also recoded some educational attainment statuses due to small cell sizes for those listing GED, 2-year religious degree, Master of Divinity (MDiv), doctorate degree, and professional degree. We collapsed the following pairs of educational attainment statuses into single categories: (1) high school degree or GED, (2) associate degree or 2-year religious degree, (3) master’s degree or MDiv, and (4) doctorate or professional degree.

As 159 participants endorsed multiple employment statuses (e.g., both student and part-time employed), we recoded responses into discrete groups. When participants only indicated “other” (n = 91), we used qualitative responses to assign a group (e.g., individuals indicating they were not employed due to disability were recoded as unemployed). For remaining multiple responses, we resolved conflicts by prioritizing responses indicating a form of employment, as we intended to assess potential differences between employed and non-employed individuals. Priority was given in the following order: full time, part time, homemaker, student, retired, unemployed, and other (e.g., those listing full time and part time were considered full time).

After data were recoded in this manner, Rao-Scott chi square analyses were used to examine demographic differences in prevalence of presence of, search for, and living a calling.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Means and standard deviations were calculated for presence of a calling (M = 6.05, SD = 2.70), search for a calling (M = 4.59, SD = 2.58), and living a calling (M = 2.60, SD = 1.47). Presence of a calling positively correlated with living a calling (r = .53, p < .001) and had a nonsignificant correlation with search for a calling (r = .05, p = .09). Living a calling and search for a calling were weakly negatively correlated (r = -.10, p < .001).

Overall Prevalence of Calling

The first objective of this study was to estimate calling’s prevalence in the continental U.S. To accomplish this, we calculated weighted percentages for each BCS and LCS item. Weighted percentages, unlike simple percentages, allow sample data to reflect direct estimates of population characteristics. Table 1 shows weighted frequencies for each response option of each calling item. Results suggested that the statement, “I have a calling to a particular kind of work” was mostly or totally true for 43% of U.S. adults. Estimates suggested “I have a good understanding of my calling as it applies to my career” was mostly or totally true for 41%. According to our weighted frequencies, “I am trying to figure out my calling in my career,” was mostly or totally true for 23%. Weighted frequencies indicated that 21% in the continental U.S. find the statement “I am searching for my calling as it applies to my career” to be mostly or totally true. Finally, 29% found the statement “I am living out my calling in my job right now” to be mostly or totally true.

Table 1.

Weighted Percentages for Presence of and Search for Calling Variables.

Item	Not at all True	Mildly True	Moderately True	Mostly True	Totally True
I have a calling to a particular kind of work.	20.78%	16.39%	19.83%	20.86%	22.13%
I have a good understanding of my calling as it applies to my career.	20.20%	16.90%	22.03%	23.06%	17.80%
I am trying to figure out my calling in my career.	38.46%	19.99%	18.08%	14.12%	9.35%
I am searching for my calling as it applies to my career.	42.92%	19.63%	15.92%	13.43%	8.10%
I am living out my calling in my job right now	36.75%	15.71%	18.30%	16.07%	13.16%

Demographic Variation

Next, we used Rao-Scott chi square analyses to examine demographic differences in prevalence of presence of, search for, and living a calling, using our dichotomized variables derived from the aforementioned recoding process.

Presence of a calling

Presence of a calling did not significantly differ across most demographic categories. Table 2 depicts weighted percentages for presence of a calling across demographics. We found no significant differences in presence of a calling among the following demographic categories: (1) sex, χ²(1, N = 1,377) = 0.04, p =.84, (2) racial groups, χ²(4, N = 1,377) = 7.82, p = .10, (3) household income, χ²(3, N = 1,179) = 4.39, p = .22, (4) educational attainment χ²(7, N = 1,346) = 11.78, p = .11, (5) political affiliation, χ²(3, N = 1,370) = 2.17, p = .54, and (6) religious traditions, χ²(7, N = 1,377) = 8.11, p = .32.

Table 2.

Demographic Characteristics of Sample Who Endorsed Varying Levels of Presence of a Calling.

Demographic Characteristic	Low Presence Weighted % (95% CI)	High Presence Weighted % (95% CI)	χ²(p Value)
Age			13.63 (< .01)
18–25	51.1 (34.7, 67.5)	48.9 (32.5, 65.4)
26–40	47.8 (38.8, 56.7)	52.3 (43.3, 61.2)
41–60	54.6 (48.9, 60.3)	45.4 (39.8, 51.1)
61+	69.6 (63.5, 75.7)	30.4 (24.3, 36.5)
Sex			0.04 (.84)
Female	54.5 (50.0, 59.0)	45.5 (41.0, 50.0)
Male	55.4 (48.7, 62.1)	44.6 (37.9, 51.3)
Race and Ethnicity			7.82 (.10)
White/Anglo	56.8 (51.1, 62.4)	43.2 (37.6, 49.0)
Black/African American	43.5 (34.6, 52.3)	56.5 (47.7, 65.4)
Hispanic/Latino	60.7 (49.8, 71.6)	39.3 (28.4, 50.1)
Asian/Asian American	49.5 (34.3, 64.7)	50.5 (35.3, 65.8)
Other	44.7 (24.4, 64.9)	55.3 (35.1, 75.6)
Household Income			4.39 (.22)
< $20,000	52.8 (42.5, 63.0)	47.2 (37.0, 57.5)
$20,000–40,000	66.3 (57.1, 75.5)	33.7 (24.5, 42.9)
$40,000–$100,000	55.6 (49.3, 61.9)	44.4 (38.1, 50.8)
> $100,000	54.9 (46.9, 63.0)	45.1 (37.0, 53.1)
Educational Attainment			11.77 (.11)
Less than high school degree	61.7 (51.2, 72.2)	38.3 (27.8, 48.8)
High school/GED	59.2 (51.7, 66.8)	40.8 (33.2, 48.4)
Vocational-technical	51.8 (39.4, 64.2)	48.2 (35.8, 60.6)
Associate/2-year religious	43.3 (32.4, 54.1)	56.7 (45.9, 67.6)
Bachelor’s	58.4 (49.7, 67.1)	41.6 (32.9, 50.3)
Master’s/Master of Divinity	55.4 (42.8, 67.9)	44.6 (32.1, 57.2)
Doctorate/Professional Degree	52.0 (34.3, 69.8)	48.0 (30.2, 65.7)
Other	69.5 (46.4, 92.6)	30.5 (7.4, 53.6)
Employment Status			29.05 (< .001)
Full Time	53.6 (47.7, 59.6)	46.4 (40.5, 52.4)
Part Time	39.4 (27.3, 51.5)	60.7 (48.5, 72.8)
Retired	75.6 (68.9, 82.2)	24.5 (17.8, 31.1)
Homemaker	58.5 (45.1, 72.0)	41.5 (28.0, 54.9)
Student	45.0 (16.9, 73.0)	55.0 (27.0, 83.1)
Unemployed	56.9 (47.7, 66.1)	43.1 (33.9, 52.3)
Political Affiliation			2.17 (.54)
Democrat	56.9 (50.5, 63.3)	43.1 (36.7, 49.5)
Republican	58.4 (50.3, 66.4)	41.6 (33.6, 49.7)
Independent	52.7 (44.0, 61.4)	47.3 (38.6, 56.0)
Other	45.7 (26.3, 65.0)	54.4 (35.0, 73.7)
Religious Tradition			8.11 (.32)
Black Protestant	46.5 (36.7, 56.2)	53.5 (43.8, 63.3)
Evangelical Protestant	56.2 (48.8, 63.6)	43.8 (36.4, 51.2)
Mainline Protestant	61.6 (48.9, 74.2)	38.4 (25.8, 51.1)
Catholic	59.0 (51.1, 66.9)	41.0 (33.1, 48.9)
Jewish	69.2 (44.9, 93.6)	30.8 (6.4, 55.1)
Other Faith	47.7 (28.6, 66.9)	52.3 (33.1, 71.4)
Non-Affiliated	55.9 (44.4, 67.4)	44.1 (32.6, 55.6)
Protestant “Other”	41.9 (25.8, 57.9)	58.2 (42.1, 74.2)
Importance of God/Spirituality			38.83 (< .001)
Not at all	55.3 (42.1, 68.6)	44.7 (31.4, 57.9)
Somewhat	70.6 (62.9, 78.4)	29.4 (21.6, 37.1)
Very	61.0 (53.0, 69.1)	39.0 (30.9, 47.1)
Extremely	49.4 (39.7, 59.1)	50.6 (40.9, 60.3)
By Far the Most	35.8 (29.3, 42.3)	64.2 (57.7, 70.7)

Significant differences in presence did emerge across age groups, χ²(3, N = 1,377) = 13.63, p < .01, with individuals 61 or older reporting the lowest levels. We also found significant differences in presence of a calling across employment statuses, χ²(5, N = 1,377) = 29.05, p < .001. Part-time employees had the highest rates of presence of a calling, whereas retired participants reported the lowest rates. Presence of calling also significantly differed as a function of importance of God or spirituality, χ²(4, N = 1,377) = 38.83, p < .001. Those reporting that God or spirituality was “by far the most important part of my life” reported the highest rates of presence of a calling (64.2%), while those who felt God or spirituality was only “somewhat” important reported the lowest rates (29.4%).

Search for a calling

Most demographic categories did not differ on search for a calling. Table 3 depicts weighted percentages for search for a calling across each demographic category. We found no significant differences on search for a calling across: (1) sex, χ²(1, N = 1,376) = 0.08, p = .78, (2) racial groups, χ²(4, N = 1,376) = 8.53, p = .07, (3) household income χ²(3, N = 1,179) = 7.18, p = .07, (4) educational attainment χ²(7, N = 1,345) = 12.00, p = .10, (5) political affiliation χ²(3, N = 1,369) = 2.91, p = .41, or (6) religious tradition groups, χ²(7, N = 1,376) = 4.60, p = .71.

Table 3.

Demographic Characteristics of Sample Who Endorsed Varying Levels of Search for Calling.

Demographic Characteristic	Low Search Weighted % (95% CI)	High Search Weighted % (95% CI)	χ²(p Value)
Age			28.33 (<.001)
18–25	72.5 (59.6, 85.4)	27.5 (14.6, 40.4)
26–40	66.1 (59.0, 73.3)	33.9 (26.7, 41.0)
41–60	83.1 (79.5, 86.7)	17.0 (13.3, 20.6)
61+	86.1 (81.3, 91.0)	13.9 (9.0, 18.7)
Sex			0.08 (.78)
Female	77.6 (73.9, 81.3)	22.4 (18.7, 26.1)
Male	76.7 (71.8, 81.7)	23.3 (18.3, 28.2)
Race and Ethnicity			8.53 (.07)
White/Anglo	78.2 (73.7, 82.7)	21.8 (17.3, 26.3)
Black/African American	73.1 (67.5, 78.7)	26.9 (21.4, 32.5)
Hispanic/Latino	71.2 (63.9, 78.6)	28.8 (21.4, 36.2)
Asian/Asian American	88.6 (81.5, 95.7)	11.4 (4.3, 18.5)
Other	75.8 (61.0, 90.6)	24.2 (9.4, 39.0)
Household Income			7.18 (.07)
< $20,000	69.8 (58.9, 80.7)	30.2 (19.3, 41.1)
$20,000–40,000	80.6 (73.6, 87.5)	19.5 (12.5, 26.4)
$40,000–$100,000	77.3 (71.9, 82.7)	22.7 (17.3, 28.1)
> $100,000	84.7 (78.6, 90.8)	15.3 (9.2, 21.4)
Educational Attainment			12.00 (.10)
Less than high school degree	72.9 (63.1, 82.8)	27.1 (17.2, 36.9)
High school/GED	78.1 (72.4, 83.8)	21.9 (16.2, 27.6)
Vocational-technical	84.1 (75.6, 92.6)	15.9 (7.4, 24.4)
Associate/2-year religious	68.1 (56.5, 79.7)	31.9 (20.3, 43.5)
Bachelor’s	77.2 (70.5, 83.9)	22.8 (16.1, 29.5)
Master’s/Master of Divinity	86.9 (78.2, 95.6)	13.1 (4.4, 21.8)
Doctorate/Professional degree	85.2 (70.0, 100.0)	14.8 (0.0, 30.0)
Other	83.9 (64.8, 100.0)	16.1 (0.0, 35.2)
Employment Status			20.71 (<.001)
Full Time	79.8 (75.6, 84.1)	20.2 (15.9, 24.4)
Part Time	68.2 (54.4, 81.9)	31.8 (18.1, 45.6)
Retired	86.0 (80.1, 91.8)	14.0 (8.2, 19.9)
Homemaker	85.0 (76.3, 93.7)	15.0 (6.3, 23.7)
Student	57.2 (28.0, 86.3)	42.8 (13.7, 72.0)
Unemployed	62.9 (54.1, 71.6)	37.2 (28.4, 45.9)
Political Affiliation			2.91 (.41)
Democrat	76.7 (71.6, 81.8)	23.3 (18.2, 28.4)
Republican	79.0 (73.7, 84.4)	21.0 (15.6, 26.3)
Independent	74.3 (66.9, 81.7)	25.7 (18.4, 33.1)
Other	85.3 (76.1, 94.4)	14.8 (5.6, 23.9)
Religious Tradition			4.60 (.71)
Black Protestant	73.7 (66.8, 80.5)	26.3 (19.5, 33.2)
Evangelical Protestant	76.9 (70.5, 83.3)	23.1 (16.7, 29.5)
Mainline Protestant	82.3 (73.5, 91.0)	17.7 (9.0, 26.5)
Catholic	80.4 (75.2, 85.7)	19.6 (14.4, 24.8)
Jewish	84.5 (69.5, 99.4)	15.6 (0.6, 30.5)
Other Faith	78.6 (62.0, 95.3)	21.4 (4.7, 38.0)
Non-Affiliated	74.2 (64.8, 83.6)	25.8 (16.4, 35.2)
Protestant “Other”	71.1 (58.5, 83.6)	28.9 (16.4, 41.5)
Importance of God/Spirituality			10.31 (<.05)
Not at all	89.1 (83.0, 95.2)	10.9 (4.8, 17.0)
Somewhat	79.4 (72.3, 86.4)	20.6 (13.6, 27.7)
Very	75.0 (68.4, 81.7)	25.0 (18.3, 31.6)
Extremely	70.0 (59.0, 80.9)	30.0 (19.1, 41.0)
By Far the Most	75.1 (68.9, 81.2)	24.9 (18.8, 31.1)

Search for a calling analyses showed significant differences between several demographic categories. Age groups showed significant variation in search for a calling, χ²(3, N = 1,376) = 28.33, p < .001. Participants aged 26–40 (33.9%) had the highest rates of endorsing search for a calling, while individuals 61 or older reported the lowest rates (13.9%). Significant differences also emerged across employment status in search for a calling, χ²(5, N = 1,376) = 20.71, p < .001. Student (42.8%) and unemployed (37.2%) populations reported the highest rates for searching for a calling, whereas the lowest rates were found for those who identified as retired (14.0%) or homemakers (15.0%). Search for a calling also significantly differed across varying degrees of self-rated importance of God or spirituality, χ²(4, N = 1,376) = 10.31, p < .05. Generally, a greater percentage of individuals were searching for a calling at higher levels of self-rated importance, with those indicating “extremely” having the highest rate (30.0%).

Living a calling

For living a calling, significant differences were found for only one category (see Table 4). The following demographic categories did not have significant differences: (1) sex, χ²(1, N = 1,378) = 3.58, p = .06, (2) racial groups, χ2 (4, N = 1,376) = 8.26, p = .08, (3) household income χ²(3, N = 1,181) = 2.20, p = .53, (4) educational attainment χ²(7, N = 1,347) = 12.10, p = .10, (5) political affiliation χ²(3, N = 1,370) = 2.66, p = .45, (6) religious tradition groups, χ²(7, N = 1,378) = 7.98, p = .33, (7) age-group χ²(3, N = 1,378) = 4.94, p = .18, and (8) employment status χ²(5, N = 1,378) = 4.98, p = .42. Importance of God or spirituality was the sole category with significant differences between groups, χ²(4, N = 1378) = 49.90, p < .001; the most salient discrepancy was between those who reported “not at all” (10.8%) and “by far the most” (47.4%).

Table 4.

Demographic Characteristics of Sample Who Endorsed Varying Levels of Living a Calling.

Demographic Characteristic	Low Living Weighted % (95% CI)	High Living Weighted % (95% CI)	χ² (p Value)
Age			4.94 (.18)
18–25	82.2 (70.4, 94.0)	17.8 (6.0, 29.6)
26–40	71.8 (65.0, 78.5)	28.2 (21.5, 35.0)
41–60	69.2 (64.2, 74.2)	30.8 (25.8, 35.8)
61+	66.8 (60.6, 72.9)	33.2 (27.1, 39.4)
Sex			3.58 (.06)
Female	67.1 (62.8, 71.3)	32.9 (28.7, 37.2)
Male	73.3 (68.5, 78.1)	26.7 (21.9, 31.5)
Race and ethnicity			8.26 (.08)
White/Anglo	73.2 (69.0, 77.4)	26.8 (22.6, 31.0)
Black/African American	64.6 (58.2, 71.1)	35.4 (28.9, 41.8)
Hispanic/Latino	69.8 (60.5, 79.0)	30.2 (21.0, 39.5)
Asian/Asian American	60.7 (45.1, 76/3)	39.3 (23.7, 54.9)
Other	59.1 (43.7, 74.5)	40.9 (25.5, 56.3)
Household income			2.20 (.53)
< $20,000	72.7 (63.9, 81.4)	27.3 (18.6, 36.1)
$20,000–40,000	74.4 (66.4, 82.4)	25.6 (17.6, 33.6)
$40,000–$100,000	69.5 (64.2, 74.7)	30.5 (25.3, 35.8)
>$100,000	66.9 (59.7, 74.0)	33.1 (26.0, 40.3)
Educational attainment			12.10 (.10)
Less than high school degree	69.0 (59.6, 78.3)	31.0 (21.7, 40.4)
High school/GED	78.4 (72.7, 84.1)	21.6 (15.9, 27.3)
Vocational-technical	61.4 (48.7, 74.1)	38.6 (25.9, 51.3)
Associate/2-year religious	71.2 (63.1, 79.3)	28.8 (20.7, 36.9)
Bachelor’s	67.6 (59.8, 75.3)	32.4 (24.7, 40.2)
Master’s/Master of Divinity	65.2 (53.9, 76.5)	34.8 (23.5, 46.1)
Doctorate/Professional degree	62.5 (45.9, 79.2)	37.5 (20.8, 54.1)
Other	70.7 (43.4, 98.0)	29.3 (2.0, 56.6)
Employment status			4.98 (.42)
Full Time	70.6 (66.0, 75.2)	29.4 (24.8, 34.0)
Part Time	71.0 (61.3, 80.7)	29.0 (19.3, 38.7)
Retired	69.1 (62.4, 75.7)	30.9 (24.3, 37.6)
Homemaker	65.9 (53.1, 78.6)	34.1 (21.4, 46.9)
Student	57.2 (27.5, 86.8)	42.8 (12.2, 72.5)
Unemployed	79.8 (71.6, 88.1)	20.2 (11.9, 28.4)
Political affiliation			2.66 (.45)
Democrat	69.6 (63.8, 75.3)	30.4 (24.7, 36.2)
Republican	70.0 (63.9, 76.0)	30.0 (24.0, 36.1)
Independent	70.1 (63.0, 77.3)	29.9 (22.7, 37.0)
Other	82.0 (70.6, 93.4)	18.0 (6.6, 29.4)
Religious tradition			7.98 (.33)
Black Protestant	64.1 (55.1, 73.1)	35.9 (26.9, 44.9)
Evangelical Protestant	67.0 (60.5, 73.4)	33.0 (26.6, 39.5)
Mainline Protestant	71.7 (62.3, 81.0)	28.3 (19.0, 37.7)
Catholic	67.8 (61.4, 74.2)	32.2 (25.8, 38.6)
Jewish	60.8 (38.4, 83.2)	39.2 (16.8, 61.6)
Other Faith	74.4 (56.5, 92.3)	25.6 (7.7, 43.5)
Non-Affiliated	78.4 (71.0, 85.8)	21.7 (14.2, 29.0)
Protestant “Other”	70.1 (57.5, 82.8)	29.9 (17.2, 42.5)
Importance of God/Spirituality			49.9 (< .001)
Not at all	89.2 (82.7, 95.7)	10.8 (4.3, 17.3)
Somewhat	78.6 (72.1, 85.0)	21.4 (15.0, 27.9)
Very	74.9 (68.4, 81.4)	25.1 (18.6, 31.6)
Extremely	63.5 (54.3, 72.7)	36.5 (27.3, 45.7)
By Far the Most	52.6 (45.9, 59.4)	47.4 (40.6, 54.1)

Discussion

This study sought to provide the first population estimates of calling’s prevalence in the continental U.S. by using weighted percentages and data drawn from a stratified, nationally representative sample. Using categorical distinctions in a manner similar to past research (Duffy & Sedlacek, 2010), we found that about 43% of U.S. adults reported that the statement “I have a calling to a particular kind of work” was mostly or totally true of them. Our study’s robust sampling methodology and use of weighted frequencies serves as a strong corroboration of rates reported in previous studies (Duffy et al., 2013; Duffy & Sedlacek, 2010), alleviating concerns that prior estimates of calling were misrepresentative due to limitations of the samples used to derive them. We also provided the first population estimates for seeking a calling and living a calling. These findings suggested that approximately 21% of individuals in the U.S. endorse that it is mostly or totally true that they are seeking a calling, while about 29% endorse that it is mostly or totally true that they are presently living their calling.

A key aspect of our findings regards their relevance for establishing whether those holding marginalized identities have lower rates of calling, particularly living a calling (e.g., Duffy & Autin, 2013). With a few exceptions discussed below (e.g., age), we did not find significant or meaningful differences in perceiving, seeking, nor living a calling across most demographic categories, including household income, educational attainment, race, and sex. Remarkably, these findings suggest that the very real barriers faced by marginalized individuals may not typically result in a diminished sense of perceiving, seeking, or living a calling. Though this is speculative, these results may suggest a role for a sense of calling in building or maintaining resilience in the face of harsh challenges. It would be fruitful for future research to investigate processes individuals may use to discern and live a calling when access to opportunity is low. Such research may contribute to the ongoing development of WCT. Practically, the similar prevalence rates for a sense of calling across demographic categories suggests that career counselors in the U.S. may expect calling to be germane for many clients representing a diverse array of identities. Although research is needed to investigate this further, it also suggests that a sense of calling may serve to foster resilience for clients facing barriers, a possibility that bears promise for its use in career counseling.

We hypothesized that presence of, search for, and living a calling would not differ by sex and race. We also hypothesized that presence of and search for a calling would not significantly differ between categories of educational attainment and income. Our results supported these hypotheses. However, we hypothesized that rates of living a calling would be significantly different between levels of educational attainment and income; this was not supported by the data. These results run counter to oft-cited evidence suggesting that those with higher social class, educational attainment, and income are more likely to be living a calling (Duffy & Autin, 2013; Duffy et al., 2013, 2016). It is possible that these contrasting findings are the result of sampling differences. For example, Duffy et al.’s aforementioned studies consisted only of working adults and removed all individuals who indicated “not applicable—I do not have a calling” on the LCS prior to analyses. Duffy and Autin (2013) reduced their sample by 21% using this method. Due to constraints in PALS procedures, the LCS item used in the present study did not have a “not applicable” option. Regardless, the present study sought to assess rates of living a calling in the general U.S. population, not exclusively among those who perceive a calling. It is also possible that use of a single-item measure, instead of the full version of the LCS, obfuscated our results. Further research involving the full LCS on a robust representative sample could help resolve these contrasting findings.

Contrary to our hypothesis, presence of and search for a calling significantly differed across age groups. Rates of presence of and search for calling were lower for those 61 or older, while those 26-40 had the highest rates. Living a calling, however, showed no significant age differences. Presence of and search for a calling also significantly differed by employment status. Contrary to our hypothesis, part-time employees had higher presence of a calling than other groups. Retirees also reported substantially lower rates of presence of a calling than other groups. Our hypotheses regarding search for calling were largely supported; students reported higher search for calling (although unemployed individuals also reported high levels of search), and retirees reported lower levels of searching for a calling than other groups (except for homemakers, who also reported low levels). Our analyses did not include control variables, but the lower rates of presence of and search for a calling in retirement and older adulthood undoubtedly reflect the substantial overlap between those populations.

Research on purpose, meaning, and goal-seeking in older adulthood and retirement could help explain their lower rates of calling. Some studies have suggested older adulthood may feature higher levels of life meaning (e.g., Steger et al., 2009), but meta-analytic research has shown that age and retirement status in older adulthood are negatively (although weakly) related to purpose in life (Pinquart, 2002). Research has demonstrated that older adults expect future declines in purpose, which contrasts with young adults and middle-aged adults, who anticipate gains and maintenance of purpose, respectively (Ryff, 1991). Reker and colleagues (1987) also found lower rates of perceived future meaning and goal-seeking (i.e., the proclivity to seek novel challenges) among older adults. As the perception of a guiding force toward purposeful work involves orientation toward a future path to be followed, the inclination to discern and pursue a calling may be undercut by a reduced sense that future increases in purpose are possible to derive in retirement and older adulthood. It may also be the case that applying the concept of calling to “paid or unpaid work,” as retired participants were asked to do, is less straightforward than focusing exclusively on one’s career. Clearly, research designed to better elucidate the nature of these lower rates of calling and other constructs relevant to meaning in older adulthood and retirement is needed. As this research commences, using results to inform interventions to help older/retired adults maximally experience calling’s benefits would be a helpful step forward.

As involuntarily unemployed individuals have been found less likely to report living a calling (Duffy, Bott, et al., 2015), we hypothesized that living a calling rates would be lower for unemployed individuals. Surprisingly, we found no significant differences in living a calling across employment statuses. A possible explanation for the contradicting results between our study and prior studies could be sampling differences similar to those mentioned above regarding educational attainment (i.e., the exclusion of individuals who did not perceive a calling from Duffy et al.’s sample) or our use of a single item to measure living a calling. It is also possible that only involuntarily unemployed individuals have reduced rates of living a calling, as our study did not distinguish between voluntarily and involuntarily unemployed individuals. The lack of significant differences in living a calling during retirement is surprising, given lower rates of presence of and search for a calling. These findings might be due to PALS prompting retired individuals to think of paid or unpaid work for living a calling, while others were only instructed to think of their current job. Future research should seek to clarify this incongruity.

We also hypothesized that those with religious affiliations would show higher presence of, search for, and living a calling than those without any religious affiliation. This was not supported by the data, as there were no significant differences on the religious tradition variable. Finally, we hypothesized that those endorsing greater importance of God or spirituality would have higher levels of calling than those finding God or spirituality to be less important. This hypothesis was mostly supported in the data. While some nuance existed in these findings (e.g., the lowest rates of presence of a calling were among those for whom God or spirituality was somewhat important), the general trend indicated that those with higher importance of God or spirituality had higher rates of all three processes of calling. This was especially true for rates of living a calling, as each successive level of importance of God or Spirituality had a greater percentage of those with high endorsement of living a calling. These findings align with other research linking religiousness/spirituality to calling (e.g., Ponton et al., 2014). This trend, along with religious tradition’s lack of association with differences in rates of calling, suggests that religiousness and spirituality influence calling by matter of their degree, rather than their kind.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study presents a broad, nationally representative view of calling in the continental U.S. with sacrifice regarding the depth and nuance of some psychometric instruments. Presence of and search for a calling were measured using the BCS, which has been well-validated (Dik et al., 2012; Duffy, Autin, et al., 2015). However, living a calling and the demographic variables were all gathered via single-item measures. This, and alterations to the response options for the LCS item, reduced the precision of our estimates of living a calling. Consequently, our findings on living a calling should be considered more tentative than those on presence and search.

Another limitation of this study was the necessity of collapsing demographic variables to increase cell size, which makes interpretation difficult. This was particularly relevant for race, educational attainment and employment status. For example, individuals were permitted to list multiple employment statuses, and the researchers were required to prioritize certain employment statuses to create discrete groups, which may decrease accuracy of results. Calling variables were also collapsed into binary variables for interpretability. As calling variables are considered continuous, bifurcating them into “high” and “low” categories obviously decreases variance. The categories used are similar to previous studies, but results can be overly simplistic and easy to misinterpret, given both categories contain individuals with some degree of calling. Other efforts to discretize continuous variables (e.g., age) would involve similar loss of variance.

Several other limitations warrant mention. One key limitation is that the data were collected in 2012. Weighted frequencies derived from the most recent available census data allows our sample to be nationally representative of the U.S. at that time, but our results are therefore best contextualized as representing the continental United States at the time of data collection; any substantial demographic changes that have occurred since that time would not be reflected. Future research using similar methodology with an updated sample would be an important next step for discerning current prevalence and demographic differences in calling. Furthermore, the present study looked at many demographic variables, but there are other yet-unexamined factors where additional differences in levels of calling may reside. For example, it is possible that there are regional differences in the United States across states or areas of the country, and future research could examine this directly. Likewise, any demographic identifiers or options not included in the PALS archived dataset could not be examined in this study but warrant attention in subsequent research. For example, our “sex” variable only included options of “male” and “female” that reflect biological sex; PALS did not include a separate variable for gender. A similar limitation stemming from use of archived data was the use of the particular racial categorizations available in the data, an issue exacerbated by the need to recode some categorizations to reach a minimum cell-size for analyses. An alternative method could use independent variables derived from racial categorization theories (see Helms et al., 2005) instead of the discrete categories used in this study. The study was also limited by its focus on breadth at the expense of depth; this was reflected not only in the use of such brief measures but also in the granularity of the analyses. Our results may provide direction for subsequent qualitative or mixed-method designs better equipped to discern nuances among populations (e.g., Duffy et al., 2017). This study also used cross-sectional data, which precludes causal inferences. For example, experiencing a calling could increase how important one perceives spirituality or God to be, rather than the other way around, or a third variable could cause both to increase (or decrease).

Conclusions

The key contributions from our study center around its use of a nationally representative sample and weighted frequencies to provide direct population estimates of calling’s prevalence and demographic differences, whereas previous research has only addressed these matters in regionally limited and/or homogeneous samples. Our results substantiated the findings of previous research by showing that 43% of adults in the continental U.S. believe that it is “mostly true” or “totally true” that they have a calling to a particular line of work. Likewise, 21% of individuals in the U.S. report they are seeking a calling, and 29% believe they are presently living a calling. This study also showed that rates of calling do not significantly vary across most demographic categories, although small differences were detected between some age groups, employment statuses, and levels of importance of God or spirituality.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

The Portraits of American Life Study (PALS), from which these data were drawn, was led by Michael O. Emerson, currently provost at North Park University. For more information, visit

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study drew a sample of participants from the Portraits of American Life Study (PALS), which received funding from Rice University’s Kinder Institute for Urban Research, University of Notre Dame, and Lilly Endowment Inc.

ORCID iD

Dylan R. Marsh

References

Berg

J. M.

Grant

A. M.

Johnson

(2010). When callings are calling: Crafting work and leisure in pursuit of unanswered occupational callings. Organization Science, 21(5), 973–994. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0497

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(1), 32–57.

Cardador

M. T.

Dane

Pratt

M. G.

(2011). Linking calling orientations to organizational attachment via organizational instrumentality. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2), 367–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.03.009

Dalla Rosa

Vianello

Anselmi

(2019). Longitudinal predictors of the development of a calling: New evidence for the a posteriori hypothesis. Journal of Vocational Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.02.007

Dik

B. J.

Canning

B. A.

Marsh

D. R.

(2019). A cultural lens approach to promoting work as a calling. In Van Zyl

L. E.

Rothmann

(Eds.), Positive psychological intervention design and protocols for multi-cultural contexts (pp. 57–80). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20020-6_3

Dik

B. J.

Duffy

R. D.

(2009). Calling and vocation at work: Definitions and prospects for research and practice. The Counseling Psychologist, 37(3), 424–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000008316430

Dik

B. J.

Eldridge

B. M.

Steger

M. F.

Duffy

R. D.

(2012). Development and validation of the Calling and Vocation Questionnaire (CVQ) and Brief Calling Scale (BCS). Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 242–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072711434410

Dik

B. J.

Shimizu

A. B.

(2019). Multiple meanings of calling: Next steps for studying an evolving construct. Journal of Career Assessment, 27(2), 323–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072717748676

Dobrow

S. R.

Tosti-Kharas

(2011). Calling: The development of a scale measure. Personnel Psychology, 64(4), 1001–1049. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01234.x

10.

Duffy

R. D.

Allan

B. A.

Autin

K. L.

Bott

E. M.

(2013). Calling and life satisfaction: It’s not about having it, it’s about living it. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030635

11.

Duffy

R. D.

Allan

B. A.

Autin

K. L.

Douglass

R. P.

(2014). Living a calling and work well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61(4), 605–615. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000042

12.

Duffy

R. D.

Allan

B. A.

Bott

E. M.

(2012). Calling and life satisfaction among undergraduate students: Investigating mediators and moderators. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(3), 469–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-011-9274-6

13.

Duffy

R. D.

Allan

B. A.

Dik

B. J.

(2011). The presence of a calling and academic satisfaction: Examining potential mediators. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(1), 74–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.11.001

14.

Duffy

R. D.

Autin

K. L.

(2013). Disentangling the link between perceiving a calling and living a calling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(2), 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031934

15.

Duffy

R. D.

Autin

K. L.

Allan

B. A.

Douglass

R. P.

(2015). Assessing work as a calling: An evaluation of instruments and practice recommendations. Journal of Career Assessment, 23(3), 351–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072714547163

16.

Duffy

R. D.

Autin

K. L.

Douglass

R. P.

(2016). Examining how aspects of vocational privilege relate to living a calling. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(4), 416–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1092570

17.

Duffy

R. D.

Autin

K. L.

England

J. W.

Douglass

R. P.

Gensmer

N. P.

(2018). Examining the effects of contextual variables on living a calling over time. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 107, 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.04.003

18.

Duffy

R. D.

Bott

E. M.

Allan

B. A.

Autin

K. L.

(2015). Calling among the unemployed: Examining prevalence and links to coping with job loss. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(4), 332–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.967798

19.

Duffy

R. D.

Bott

E. M.

Allan

B. A.

Torrey

C. L.

Dik

B. J.

(2012). Perceiving a calling, living a calling, and job satisfaction: Testing a moderated, multiple mediator model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(1), 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026129

20.

Duffy

R. D.

Dik

B. J.

Douglass

R. P.

England

J. W.

Velez

B. L.

(2018). Work as a calling: A theoretical model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65(4), 423–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000276

21.

Duffy

R. D.

England

J. W.

Douglass

R. P.

Autin

K. L.

Allan

B. A.

(2017). Perceiving a calling and well-being: Motivation and access to opportunity as moderators. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 98, 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.11.003

22.

Duffy

R. D.

Manuel

R. S.

Borges

N. J.

Bott

E. M.

(2011). Calling, vocational development, and well being: A longitudinal study of medical students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2), 361–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.03.023

23.

Duffy

R. D.

Sedlacek

W. E.

(2007). The presence of and search for a calling: Connections to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70(3), 590–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.03.007

24.

Duffy

R. D.

Sedlacek

W. E.

(2010). The salience of a career calling among college students: Exploring group differences and links to religiousness, life meaning, and life satisfaction. The Career Development Quarterly, 59(1), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2010.tb00128.x

25.

Duffy

R. D.

Torrey

C. L.

England

Tebbe

E. A.

(2017). Calling in retirement: A mixed methods study. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(4), 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1187201

26.

Dumulescu

Opre

Ramona

(2015). “Is your career meaningful?” Exploring career calling on a Romanian students sample. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 187, 553–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.103

27.

Emerson

M. O.

Essenburg

L. J.

(2013). Religious change and continuity in the United States: 2006-2012. Kinder Institute for Urban Research.

28.

Emerson

M. O.

Sikkink

James

A. D.

(2010). The panel study on American religion and ethnicity: Background, methods, and selected results. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49(1), 162–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01498.x

29.

Esteves

Lopes

M. P.

(2017). Crafting a calling: The mediating role of calling between challenging job demands and turnover intention. Journal of Career Development, 44(1), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845316633789

30.

Gazica

M. W.

Spector

P. E.

(2015). A comparison of individuals with unanswered callings to those with no calling at all. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.08.008

31.

Hagmaier

Abele

A. E.

(2012). The multidimensionality of calling: Conceptualization, measurement and a bicultural perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.04.001

32.

Hagmaier

Abele

A. E.

(2015). When reality meets ideal: Investigating the relation between calling and life satisfaction. Journal of Career Assessment, 23(3), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072714547164

33.

Hall

S. F.

Burkholder

Sterner

W. R.

(2014). Examining spirituality and sense of calling in counseling students. Counseling and Values, 59(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-007X.2014.00038.x

34.

Hardy

(1990). The fabric of this world: Inquiries into calling, career choice, and the design of human work. W. B. Eerdmans.

35.

Harzer

Ruch

(2012). When the job is a calling: The role of applying one’s signature strengths at work. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7(5), 362–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2012.702784

36.

Helms

J. E.

Jernigan

Mascher

(2005). The meaning of race in psychology and how to change it: A methodological perspective. American Psychologist, 60(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.1.27

37.

Hirsbrunner

L. E.

Loeffler

D. N.

Rompf

E. L.

(2012). Spirituality and religiosity: Their effects on undergraduate social work career choice. Journal of Social Service Research, 38(2), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2011.645411

38.

Hirschi

(2012). Callings and work engagement: Moderated mediation model of work meaningfulness, occupational identity, and occupational self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(3), 479–485. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028949

39.

Hirschi

Herrmann

(2012). Vocational identity achievement as a mediator of presence of calling and life satisfaction. Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 309–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072711436158

40.

Hirschi

Herrmann

(2013). Calling and career preparation: Investigating developmental patterns and temporal precedence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(1), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.02.008

41.

Hunter

Dik

B. J.

Banning

J. H.

(2010). College students’ perceptions of calling in work and life: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(2), 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.10.008

42.

Lips-Wiersma

Wright

Dik

B. J.

(2016). Meaningful work: Differences among blue-, pink-, and white-collar occupations. Career Development International, 21(5), 534–551. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-04-2016-0052

43.

Marsh

D. R.

Alayan

A. J.

Dik

B. J.

(2020). Answered callings, unanswered callings, or no calling: Examining a nationally representative sample. Career Development Quarterly, 68(4), 374–380.

44.

Perry

S. L.

(2016). Does viewing pornography diminish religiosity over time? Evidence from two-wave panel data. The Journal of Sex Research, 54(2), 214–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1146203

45.

Peterson

Park

Hall

Seligman

M. E. P.

(2009). Zest and work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(2), 161–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.584

46.

Pinquart

(2002). Creating and maintaining purpose in life in old age: A meta-analysis. Ageing International, 27(2), 90–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12126-002-1004-2

47.

Ponton

Brown

McDonnell

Clark

Pepe

Deykerhoff

(2014). Vocational perception: A mixed-method investigation of calling. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 17(3), 182–204. https://doi.org/10.1037/mgr0000019

48.

Praskova

Hood

Creed

P. A.

(2014). Testing a calling model of psychological career success in Australian young adults: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85(1), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.04.004

49.

Reker

G. T.

Peacock

E. J.

Wong

P. T. P.

(1987). Meaning and purpose in life and well-being: A life-span perspective. Journal of Gerontology, 44–49.

50.

Ryff

C. D.

(1991). Possible selves in adulthood and old age: A tale of shifting horizons. Psychology and Aging, 6(2), 286–295. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.6.2.286

51.

Shimizu

A. B.

Dik

B. J.

Conner

B. T.

(2019). Conceptualizing calling: Cluster and taxometric analyses. Journal of Vocational Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.07.006

52.

Steensland

Robinson

L. D.

Wilcox

W. B.

Park

J. Z.

Regnerus

M. D.

Woodberry

R. D.

(2000). The measure of American religion: Toward improving the state of the art. Social Forces, 79(1), 291–318.

53.

Steger

M. F.

Dik

B. J.

Duffy

R. D.

(2012). Measuring meaningful work: The Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072711436160

54.

Steger

M. F.

Oishi

Kashdan

T. B.

(2009). Meaning in life across the life span: Levels and correlates of meaning in life from emerging adulthood to older adulthood. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760802303127

55.

Steger

M. F.

Pickering

N. K.

Shin

J. Y.

Dik

B. J.

(2010). Calling in work: Secular or sacred? Journal of Career Assessment, 18(1), 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072709350905

56.

Super

D. E.

(1980). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16(3), 282–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(80)90056-1

57.

Thompson

J. A.

Bunderson

J. S.

(2019). Research on work as a calling…and how to make it matter. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, 421–443.

58.

Wrzesniewski

McCauley

Rozin

Schwartz

(1997). Jobs, careers, and callings: People’s relations to their work. Journal of Research in Personality, 31(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2162

59.

Xie

Xia

Xin

Zhou

(2016). Linking calling to work engagement and subjective career success: The perspective of career construction theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 94, 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.02.011

60.

Zhang

Dik

B. J.

Wei

Zhang

(2015). Work as a calling in China: A qualitative study of Chinese college students. Journal of Career Assessment, 23(2), 236–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072714535029

61.

Zhang

Hirschi

Dik

B. J.

Wei

You

(2018). Reciprocal relation between authenticity and calling among Chinese university students: A latent change score approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 107, 222–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.05.005