Examining Social Class and Work Meaning Within the Psychology of Working Framework_allan_autin_duffy_2014

7/26/2019 Examining Social Class and Work Meaning Within the Psychology of Working Framework_allan_autin_duffy_2014

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/examining-social-class-and-work-meaning-within-the-psychology-of-working-frameworkallanauti… 1/19

Article

Examining Social Class and Work

Meaning Within the Psychologyof Working Framework

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

AbstractIn this article, we used the psychology of working framework to examine how social class relates to

the experience of meaningful work with two samples of working adults. In Study 1, participants in

higher social classes were more likely to experience work meaning than people in lower social

classes. Regardless of class, participants reported serving others or contributing to the greater goodas the primary source of their work’s meaning. In Study 2, we used a latent, multiple mediator model

to test whether the three components of work volition mediated the relation between social class

and work meaning. The model was a good fit to the data and partially supported our hypotheses.

Specifically, volition and financial constraints fully mediated the relation between social class and

work meaning, suggesting that social class may be linked to work meaning due to increased volition

and decreased financial constraints.

Keywords

work meaning, social class, socioeconomic status, work volition, psychology of working

Scholars within the fields of industrial/organizational psychology and counseling psychology have

increasingly turned their attention to meaningfulness in the workplace (Dik, Duffy, & Eldridge,

2009; Pratt & Ashforth, 2003; Steger, Dik, & Duffy, 2012). The majority of this research has

revealed work meaning to be an important correlate of work and well-being outcomes, such as orga-

nizational commitment, job satisfaction, life meaning, and life satisfaction (see Steger et al., 2012,for a review). Although this research has expanded our understanding of the importance of experi-

encing meaningful work, most of these studies have tended to focus on middle- to upper-middle-

class individuals with relative power and privilege, thereby limiting the understanding of meaningful

work as it applies to individuals from lower social class backgrounds (Blustein, 2001; Blustein,

Kenna, Gill, & Devoy, 2008). The aim of the two current studies is to extend the work meaning

literature by exploring whether or not social class relates to both the amount of meaningfulness

workers experience and the sources from which workers obtain meaningfulness. Additionally,

1

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

Corresponding Author:

Blake A. Allan, Department of Psychology, University of Florida, PO Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Journal of Career Assessment

2014, Vol. 22(4) 543-561

ª The Author(s) 2013

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1069072713514811 jca.sagepub.com

543

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jca.sagepub.com/

http://jca.sagepub.com/

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav



following from Blustein, Kenna, Gill, and Devoy’s (2008) psychology of working framework

(PWF), we aim to examine whether perceptions of control in career decision making explain the

relation between social class and work meaning.

Theoretical Background

The PWF was founded on the observation that most vocational research from the past century is

based on samples of middle-class, college-educated adults and therefore may only be applicable

to a privileged subset of the global population (Blustein, 2001, 2006). In the PWF, Blustein and

colleagues (2008) called for vocational psychologists to engage in research that includes individuals

who lack resources and access to opportunity structures, such as higher education. Central to this is

the concept of work volition, defined as the extent to which individuals feel that they have choice in

their occupational lives (Blustein, 2001; Duffy, Diemer, Perry, Laurenzi, & Torrey, 2012b). Blustein

(2001) asserted that by consistently conceptualizing the traditional career path as one in which an

individual has access to occupational and educational resources that allow for career choice based on personal preference, vocational psychology is ignoring a vast number of individuals who do not

experience choice in their work lives.

The PWF recognizes that work can fulfill three basic human needs, survival and power, social

connectedness, and self-determination, and evidence largely supports this claim (Blustein et al.,

2008; Deci & Ryan, 2001; Fernet, Gagne, & Austin, 2010; Kalleberg, 1977; McNeese-Smith,

1999). Survival needs, at the basic level, encompass things that one needs to ensure physical safety

and security; that is, food, clothing, shelter, and so on. As societies become more complex, resources

become less tangible in forms such as education, status, and prestige, all of which lead to greater

access to these material resources. Work provides an avenue to accrue these symbolic resources

as well as material wealth. Therefore, working allows one to not only meet needs for physical sur-vival but also for psychological power (Blustein, 2006). Working may also meet needs for social

connectedness on several different levels. Perhaps most intuitive is the provision of lasting and

meaningful bonds with others (e.g., coworkers, supervisors, and beneficiaries) at work. In a broader

sense, working can act as a means to connect people to the greater society, economy, and political

structure by providing a way to contribute to their community (Blustein, 2006). The PWF promotes

the importance of viewing work holistically, in the context of an individual’s larger world and exter-

nal influences on working; family life, in particular, is a relational factor that may have a large

impact on career development and is deeply interwoven with issues of volition.

Finally, Blustein (2006) proposes that work provides an avenue in which self-determination

needs can be met. Drawing upon self determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), Blustein (2006)

notes that self-determined work is intrinsically motivating, acting as a form of expression of one’s

authentic identity. In addition to variables outlined by Deci and Ryan (2000; autonomy, competence,

and relatedness), Blustein (2006) proposed that in order for extrinsically motivating work to be inter-

nalized, it is important that there is (a) value congruence, in which an individual’s core values align

with those of the organization they are working for and (b) access to the opportunity structure, or

resources such as education, social support, safe and adequate housing, and financial support.

Access to the opportunity structure may be especially relevant to individuals of lower class back-

grounds, who might lack access to these resources that increase the likelihood of finding work that

is rewarding and meaningful (Blustein, 2006) and therefore meeting needs for self-determination.

Work Meaning

What is meaningful work? Different scholars have considered this question and have offered conflict-

ing definitions and conceptualizations. For example, the terms ‘‘meaning’’ and ‘‘meaningfulness’’ are

544 Journal of Career Assessment 22(4)

544



often used interchangeably, even though some scholars differentiate between the two (see Pratt &

Ashforth, 2003). For the purposes of this study, we will use Steger, Dik, and Duffy’s (2012)

definition of ‘‘work meaning’’: The subjective experience that one’s work has significance, facil-

itates personal growth, and contributes to the greater good and will use the terms ‘‘meaning’’ and

‘‘meaningfulness’’ interchangeably.

Experiencing work as meaningful has been positively linked to a host of work and well-being

constructs. For example, people who say their work is meaningful report greater life satisfaction and

life meaning and lower levels of anxiety, hostility, and depression (Steger et al., 2012). Work mean-

ing is also predictive of positive work-related variables such as higher job performance and produc-

tivity (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Grant, 2008), greater career and organizational commitment

(Duffy, Bott, Allan, & Torrey, 2013), more intrinsic work motivation (Steger et al., 2012), sacrifice

of time and pay for careers, and the tendency hold organizations to a higher standard (Bunderson &

Thompson, 2009). Finally, experiencing meaning at work has been linked with lower withdrawal

intentions and rates of absenteeism (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Steger et al., 2012), higher job

satisfaction, and perceiving one’s job as a calling (Duffy, Bott, Allan, Torrey, & Dik, 2012a). Inshort, work meaning appears to be important correlate of both personal well-being and

job-related outcomes.

Sources of Work Meaning

Several researchers have also attempted to identify the sources of work meaning. Rosso, Dekas, and

Wrzesniewski (2010) attempted to synthesize the literature on sources of work meaning by categor-

izing sources into four pathways to work meaning: individuation, contribution, self-connection, and

unification. The self-connection pathway (self/communion intersection) leads to meaningful work

because it involves an individual feeling aligned and engaged with her or his identity. Individuation(self/agency intersection) involves drawing meaningfulness from establishing the self as a valuable,

autonomous individual. Unification (other/communion intersection) entails communion and har-

mony with others, with belongingness playing a central role. Finally, contribution (other/agency)

refers to the extent to which one perceives that she or he is making a significant impact on others.

In summary, experiencing work as meaningful may arise from performing work that is aligned with

one’s personal identity, helps one feel valuable, involves harmony with others, and contributes to the

common good.

Work Meaning and Social Class

Social class is broadly defined as people’s relative position in society’s economic and cultural

hierarchy (Diemer, Mistry, Wadsworth, Lopez, & Reimers, 2012). However, it also reflects the

power, influence, and control over resources that this rank affords (Diemer et al., 2012). Generally,

social class is operationalized in two ways. First, some research assesses individuals’ perceptions of

their status in society, termed subjective social status (SSS). SSS is often assessed with categorical or

continuous scales in which participants place themselves on the social class spectrum. This approach

better measures people’s subjectively experienced social class as well as classism or social class

expectations (Liu et al., 2004). Second, social class is measured with objective measures, usually

referred to as socioeconomic status (SES), which consists of family income or wealth, occupational

prestige, and level of education (Diemer et al., 2012; Nakao & Treas, 1994). The theoretical frame-

work of the PWF and several lines of research suggest that social classes may differ in both theamount of work meaning they experience and how they experience work meaning. As discussed

previously, not everyone has access to higher levels of education and advantageous vocational

opportunities that may lead to occupations allowing for higher levels of self-expression, self-

Allan et al. 545

545



determination, and satisfying relationships with others and, in turn, increased meaningfulness

(Blustein et. al., 2008).

Previous research by Hackman and colleagues (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman & Oldham,

1975) supports this notion. They assert that five primary job characteristics (task significance, task

identity, skill variety, autonomy, and feedback from the job) influence psychological states, one of

which is experienced meaningfulness (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman

& Oldham, 1975). They describe jobs that encompass these characteristics as ‘‘enriched’’ and pro-

pose that occupations that include these qualities serve to fulfill higher order needs (Hackman &

Oldham, 1975). More recent research demonstrated support for this model (DeVaro & Robert,

2007) and extended the findings by showing meaningfulness to be a key mediator between these

job characteristics and positive work outcomes (Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007). Low-

and high-status jobs may differ in the extent to which they offer enrichment; although there is

evidence that suggests low-wage workers may show resilience in the face of barriers to enrichment

(Stacey, 2005). However, the structure of many low-status occupations may impede factors such

as autonomy and skill development and thus enrichment at work. For example, in a study on per-ceived dignity in low-wage hospital workers, researchers found that factors such as poor pay and

excessive physical demand impeded potential benefits of work redesign (Berg & Frost, 2005).

Additional support that the amount of work meaning may differ between those of low and high

social class is found in the relation of income and education to the experience of a career calling, a

summons to a prosocial occupation that is personally meaningful. Duffy and colleagues (Duffy,

Allan, Autin, & Bott, 2013; Duffy & Autin, 2013) found that individuals with lower levels of income

and education did not differ in the extent to which they perceived a calling but that those with high

income and educational attainment were more likely to actually live out their calling. In short, both

the PWF and empirical research suggest that those in higher social classes may be more likely to

experience work meaning than those in lower social classes.

Work Volition

The question remains as to how social class might link to work meaning, and work volition is a

possible mediating variable. Work volition is broadly defined as the perception of choice in one’s

career despite external barriers and consists of three components: (a) volition, (b) financial con-

straints, and (c) structural constraints. Work volition has been strongly linked with job satisfaction

(Duffy, Bott, Torrey, & Webster, 2013; Duffy, Diemer, et al., 2012b) and moderately linked with life

satisfaction (Duffy, Bott, Allan, & Torrey, 2013). Although there is little empirical research looking

directly at work volition’s relation to work meaning and social class, multiple studies have explored

closely related constructs to each of the three components.

Volition. Volition refers to the perceived capacity to make occupational choices (Duffy, Diemer,

et al., 2012b). Like variables such as internal locus of control, this variable reflects aspects of choice,

control, and engaging in a vocational behavior in accordance with free will rather than out of pres-

sure or force (Reeve, Hamm, & Nix, 2003). In a study examining self-determination, intrinsic moti-

vation, and volition, Reeve, Hamm, and Nix (2003) found a sense of volition was central to the

experience of intrinsic motivation, which has been in turn linked to greater meaningfulness (see

Rosso, Dekas, & Wrzesniewski, 2010). Feeling a general sense of volition in one’s occupational

choices may be a key ingredient to choosing meaningful jobs and experiencing meaning while in

those jobs.

Financial Constraints. Financial constraints refers to the perceived impact of financial factors on one’s

ability to make occupational choices (Duffy, Diemer, et al., 2012b). Financial concerns may be one


546



of the heaviest burdens on individuals of lower social classes. As illustrated in a qualitative study

examining the role of social class in school to work transition, young adults of high SES reported

a diverse array of reasons for pursuing work (e.g., personal meaning and satisfaction) and expressed

their self-concept through working, whereas students of low SES identified one primary reason for

working: financial reward (Blustein et al., 2002). This is consistent with the finding from Brief,

Konovsky, Goodwin, and Link (1995) that individuals of lower social class viewed the financial

rewards of work as more meaningful than those of higher social class. One of the reasons why those

from lower social classes experience less work meaning may be because of a lack of work volition

due to financial constraints in choosing desired occupations.

Structural Constraints. Structural constraints are the perceived impact of external factors on one’s abil-

ity to make occupational choices (Duffy, Diemer et al., 2012b). Structural constraints to choice may

include barriers such as economic recession, oppression, and marginalization (Duffy, Diemer et al.,

2012b). Several studies (Parham & Helms, 1985; Schaafsma, 2011; Smith, Caputi, & Crittenden,

2012) have looked at structural barriers to obtaining employment as they relate to higher order needs. In a meta-analysis of focusing on the work lives of refugees, Mpofu, Stevens, Biggs, and

Johnson (2012) noted several structural barriers that prevented individuals in this population

from extracting meaningfulness from their careers. Additionally, feelings of inferiority and res-

ignation due to racial and gender discrimination have been linked to lower self-actualizing ten-

dencies (Parham & Helms, 1985; Smith et al., 2012). One of the reasons that those from lower

social classes experience less work meaning may be due to structural constraints in choosing

desired occupations.

The Present Study

The goals of the current studies were to (a) examine differences in social class in the experience and

sources of work meaning and (b) test whether the three components of work volition—volition,

financial constraints, and structural constraints—explain the relation between social class and work

meaning. In Study 1, with a sample of working adults, we investigated whether there were differ-

ences in the amount of work meaning experienced by different social classes. In this study, we used

subjective (SSS) and objective measures (SES) of social class. Drawing from numerous previous

studies (e.g., Blustein et al., 2008; Duffy & Autin, 2013; Duffy et al., 2012), we hypothesized that

people in higher social classes would have significantly higher work meaning than those in lower

social classes (Hypothesis 1). Study 1 was also designed to test whether people from different social

classes cited different sources of their work’s meaning. Also based on several empirical studies

(Blustein et al., 2002; Brief, Konovsky, Goodwin, & Link, 1995; Rosso et al., 2010) and the theo-

retical propositions of Blustein et al. (2008), we hypothesized that people in lower social classes

would report more themes related to survival than those in higher social classes, who would report

more themes related to higher order psychological needs (Hypothesis 2).

In Study 2, with a new sample of working adults, we sought to replicate findings from Study 1 and

also test the degree to which the three components of work volition mediated the relation of social

class to work meaning. This was completed using structural equation modeling with latent

constructs developed for the five core variables (social class, volition, financial constraints, struc-

tural constraints, and work meaning), and mediation was tested using bootstrapping techniques.

This study employed an SES operationalization of social class to replicate and extend the findings

from Study 1. Drawing from previous research (Brief et al., 1995; Mpofu, Stevens, Biggs, & Johnson,2012; Reeve et al., 2003) and theoretical propositions (Blustein et al., 2008), we hypothesized that

volition, financial constraints, and structural constraints would significantly and fully mediate the link

between social class and work meaning (Hypothesis 3; see Figure 1).

Allan et al. 547

547



Study 1

Method Participants. Participants were 351 employed adults. Of this group, 214 identified as female (61%),

133 as male (38%), and 4 as transgender or gender-queer (1%). Additionally, 288 (82%) of the par-

ticipants identified as White, 20 (6%) as African American, 20 (6%) as Asian/Asian American, 12

(3%) as Hispanic/Latina/Latino American, and 11 (3%) as Multiracial. The ages of participants ran-

ged from 18 to 80 years, with a mean age of 35.74 (standard deviation [SD] ¼ 11.64). Income ranged

from US$1,500/year to US$250,000/year with a mean of US$48,660.47 (SD ¼ $33,917.85). How-

ever, a large proportion of participants ( N ¼ 121) did not provide their income. In terms of class, 32

(9%) of participants were identified as lower class, 147 (42%) as working class, 147 (42%) as middle

class, and 25 (7%) as upper-middle class/upper class. In terms of highest level of education achieved,

6 (2%) had some high school or less, 33 (9%) had high school diplomas, 21 (6%) had vocationalschool diplomas, 108 (31%) had some college, 140 (40%) had college degrees, and 43 (12%) had

professional or advanced degrees. In total, 243 (69%) of participants worked full-time and 108

(31%) worked part-time.

Instruments

Social Class. As discussed previously, social class can be measured with both subjective (i.e., people

rating their own social class) and objective (i.e., based on income, level of education, and occu-

pational prestige) measures. For this study, both subjective and objective measures were used. The

subjective measure consisted of a 5-point scale including the categories of lower class, workingclass, middle class, upper-middle class, and upper class. Given that only a few participants

selected upper class, this category was merged with upper-middle class. Following from previous

research (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002; Cohen, Doyle, & Baum, 2006; Janicki-Deverts et al., 2007),

.08 (-.01)

.20*

-.30*(.08*)

.53* (.08*)

-.23*

.05 (.15*)

-.36*

SocialClass

StructuralConstraints

Volition

FinancialConstraints

Work Meaning

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


548



our objective measure combined the z -transformed income, education, and occupational prestige

scores for each participant (Nakao & Treas, 1994). Income was assessed with the single question,

‘‘What was your total household income in 2011?’’ Level of education was also assessed with the

single question, ‘‘What is your highest degree obtained?’’ Participants answered this question on a

7-point scale ranging from Less than high school to Professional degree (e.g., MBA, MS, PhD).

Participants also reported their occupations with a response to the question, ‘‘What is your job

title? Please be specific.’’ To obtain a measure occupational prestige from participant’s occupa-

tions, we used Nakao and Treas’s (1994) occupational prestige scale. This scale was constructed

from data from the 1989 General Social Survey by having participants rank the prestige value of

over 700 occupations. The scale assigns a numerical value ranging from 0 to 100 to each occupa-

tion, with higher values indicating higher prestige. Nakao and Treas (1994) found the scale to

correlate highly with other measures of prestige and SES. Although this measure is somewhat

dated, it is still one the most modern classifications of occupational prestige, which allowed us

to create an objective measure of social class (Diemer et al., 2012). For the present study, a

research assistant coded the occupations provided by participants on the basis of this scale.Income, level of education, and occupational prestige were z -transformed and summed to create

the objective social class variable.

Work Meaning. The degree to which participants perceived their work as meaningful was measured

with the Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI; Steger et al., 2012). The WAMI is a 10-item

questionnaire measured on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 7 ¼ strongly agree.

Sample items include ‘‘I have found a meaningful career’’ and ‘‘The work I do serves a greater pur-

pose.’’ Steger et al. (2012) found the scale to have an estimated internal consistency of a ¼ .93. The

WAMI’s subscales loaded on a higher order factor, which had good indices of fit. It also correlated

in the expected directions with measures of calling, career commitment, organizational commit-ment, job satisfaction, intrinsic work motivation, life satisfaction, and meaning in life. The estimated

internal consistency of scale scores in the present study was a ¼ .96.

Source of Work Meaning. To assess the reasons why participants perceived their work as meaningful,

we first presented participants with the following paragraph after completing the WAMI: ‘‘You just

completed a questionnaire about the meaningfulness of your work. Some people consider their work

to have some degree of purpose, significance, or importance above and beyond earning a paycheck.

However, different people identify different reasons why their work is meaningful. We want to know

what makes your work meaningful.’’ Participants then completed the following free response

question: ‘‘Please think carefully about the following question: Do you believe that your work is

meaningful? If yes, what makes it meaningful?’’

Procedure

Data for this study were collected through the online data collection service Mechanical Turk

(MTurk). MTurk is a website that allows people to take surveys for monetary rewards. The goal

in using MTurk was to collect a sample of working adults who were demographically, geographi-

cally, and occupationally diverse. Recent reviews and studies examining MTurk have largely con-

cluded that it produces valid data that are comparable to laboratory and other Internet recruitment

methods; however, samples from MTurk tend to be more diverse (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling,

2011; Sprouse, 2011). People typically report enjoyment as the major reason they use MTurk, rather than for remuneration (Buhrmester et al., 2011). A link including an informed consent document and

the survey itself was posted on MTurk and in order to participate, participants had to (a) be over the

age of 18, (b) reside within the United States, and (c) be employed at least part-time. Participants

Allan et al. 549

549



were given US¢30 for taking part in the study. Within the survey, 3 items were inserted that asked

participants to select a specific answer in order to ensure the validity of the data. The original sample

consisted of 457 people. From this, we removed people who were unemployed or students and those

who failed to select the 3 validity check items. This resulted in the final sample of 351 participants.

Only eight participants failed to have complete data. We deleted these data listwise.

Results

Work Meaning and Social Class. The first goal of this study was to determine whether work meaning

was related to social class. WAMI scores were slightly negatively skewed, but absolute scores of

skewness and kurtosis were less than 1. Therefore, we did not transform WAMI scores. The social

class composite score was also normally distributed.

The social class composite score had a weak to moderate, positive correlation with work meaning

(r ¼ .16, p < .05). A nonparametric, Spearman correlation between the categorical social class vari-

ables and work meaning yielded the same result (r ¼ .16, p < .01). Therefore, we conducted a one-way analysis of variance with a series of planned contrasts to compare work meaning among our

categorical social class groups. We chose planned contrasts to maintain power while minimizing the

inflation of family-wise error and because of the hypothesis’s directionality (Field, 2009). Planned

comparisons consisted of three subsequent tests: the lower class group to the three higher class

groups; the working-class group to the middle class and upper-middle/upper-class groups; and

the middle-class group to the upper-middle/upper class group. The omnibus F -test was significant,

F (3, 339) ¼ 2.92, p < .05, so we proceeded with the contrasts. The F -test for homogeneity of var-

iance was not significant, F (3, 339) ¼ 1.74, ns, so we assumed equal variances between groups. The

means and SDs of the four social class groups were as follows: lower ( M ¼ 42.94, SD ¼ 16.30),

working ( M ¼ 45.33, SD ¼ 15.74), middle ( M ¼ 48.50, SD ¼ 16.07), and upper middle ( M ¼ 53.17,SD ¼ 11.48). The first planned contrast showed a significant difference in work meaning between

the lower class group and all higher class groups, t (339) ¼ 1.97, p < .05. The second planned contrast

showed a significant difference between the working-class group and the two higher class groups,

t (339) ¼ 2.54, p < .05. However, the third planned contrast did not find a significant difference

between the middle class and upper-middle class/upper class group, t (339) ¼ 1.48, ns.

Source of Meaning. To analyze participants’ responses to our single open-ended question about why

their work was meaningful, we used conventional content analysis. Conventional content analysis

does not use prior theory to guide coding and allows categories to arise from the text (Hsieh &

Shannon, 2005). As opposed to grounded theory method or consensual qualitative research, which

aim to understand participants’ phenomenological experiences, conventional content analysis

only leads to concept building and categorization of answers (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). To begin,

the first author and second author, each doctoral students in a counseling psychology program,

independently examined the responses. This process involved attempting to understand the core

source or sources of participants’ meaningful work and creating appropriate categories. The first

and second authors then independently reviewed each other’s work and noted conflicts with his or

her proposed categorization. The authors then met to discuss and resolve these conflicts. After-

ward, the third author, an assistant professor in a counseling psychology program with expertise

in qualitative analysis, reviewed and audited the categories created by the first and second authors

for accuracy and agreement.

In total, 71% ( N ¼ 248) of the sample said that their work was meaningful. For the participantswho indicated their work was meaningful, 92% ( N ¼ 229) identified one primary reason their work

was meaningful, 6% ( N ¼ 14) identified two primary reasons, 2% ( N ¼ 4) identified three primary

reasons, and 1 participant failed to answer the question. Content analysis yielded eight broad


550



categories. The largest category was ‘‘helping others,’’ which 70% ( N ¼ 173) of the subsample

endorsed. This category encompassed answers that referred to helping others on an individual level,

often directly. Only three responses in this category referenced family, so this largely reflected help-

ing nonfamilial people. For example, a web designer wrote, ‘‘[My work] helps people create their own personal space on the web and share it with the world,’’ and a systems engineer wrote,

‘‘[My work] can have a direct impact on warfighters and save lives.’’

The next largest category was ‘‘contributing to the greater good,’’ which was reflected in 16%

( N ¼ 39) of responses. In contrast to helping others individually, this category reflected helping

organizations of people, such as one’s country, community, or company. In these responses, people

did not reference other people specifically but instead cited organizations that are made up of people.

For example, a receptionist said, ‘‘Without me, the office would be in a shambles. Being a recep-

tionist is not the most revered job, but it is important,’’ and a senior consultant reported, ‘‘My work

contributes to the flow of the nation’s economy, which has vast implications on the entire country.’’

The third largest category was ‘‘personal growth and enjoyment,’’ which emerged in 7% ( N ¼ 18) of the answers. In this category, people wrote about how their work was meaningful because of

personal benefits they gained, such as self-determination, maximizing their potential, work enjoy-

ment, a sense of purpose, and intellectual growth. A data and graphics administrator described this

category well: ‘‘I believe that my job has given me some sense of direction, has provided a great

deal of motivation and impetus for moving forward in career opportunities, and has facilitated

intellectual growth and harnessing of skills.’’ The remaining categories included generating or

preserving knowledge (5%; N ¼ 12), making money (2%; N ¼ 5), forming relationships at work

(2%; N ¼ 4), capturing or creating beauty (2%; N ¼ 4), and unclassifiable (2%; N ¼ 5).

Source of Work Meaning and Class. As seen in Table 1, the vast majority of responses fell in the help-

ing others category, there were relatively few participants in the lower and upper-middle class/upper

classes ( N ¼ 32 and N ¼ 25 respectively), and several people’s answers included multiple sources.

Therefore, there were less than five expected cases in many cells, making a w2 test of independence

untenable (Field, 2009). However, Table 1 clearly shows that, regardless of social class, the vast

majority of responses fall into the helping others or contributing to the greater good categories.

Discussion

The goals of Study 1 were to examine whether people in different social classes reported different

levels of work meaning and whether people from different classes cited different sources of their

work’s meaning. Supporting our hypothesis and consistent with the PWF, people from the lower and working-class groups reported lower work meaning than higher class groups, with work meaning

averages getting progressively larger with each class group. This is consistent with previous studies

that have found meaningful work to differ based on level of education and income (Duffy, Allan,

Table 1. Categories of Meaning Source by Social Class.

Source Category

Class group Greater good Help others Personal Knowledge Mixed Misc

Lower 0% (0) 82% (14) 6% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 12% (2)Working 14% (14) 62% (63) 3% (3) 1% (1) 9% (9) 8% (8)Middle 13% (14) 71% (77) 1% (1) 5% (5) 6% (7) 5% (5)Upper middle 20% (4) 45% (9) 5% (1) 0% (0) 15% (3) 15% (3)Total 13% (32) 66% (163) 2% (6) 2% (6) 9% (22) 7% (18)

Allan et al. 551

551


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/examining-social-class-and-work-meaning-within-the-psychology-of-working-frameworkallanau… 10/19

et al., 2013). It also suggests that something about being in a lower social class may hinder people

from viewing their work as meaningful.

Contrary to our hypothesis, the sources of work meaning among the different social classes did

not seem to differ. However, the classification of sources used in our study did not result in enough

different categories to statistically test differences among class groups. Regardless, this seems to

be because the vast majority participants cited helping others or contributing to the greater good as

the source of their work’s meaning. Drawing conclusions from this result should be tentative, since

we did not use a statistical test, but this preliminary result suggests that although social classes

differ in how much meaning they perceive in their work, they may not differ in what leads to their

meaningful work.

Our results suggest that, across different social class groups, prosocial impact seems to be the

primary source of work meaning. This is the first study to qualitatively explore the sources of

people’s work meaning, and better studies are needed to understand people’s rich experiences. How-

ever, this initial result supports theories of work meaning and empirical research that place prosocial

impact in a central role (Grant, 2007; Grant, 2008; Rosso et al., 2010). Using Rosso et al.’s (2010)theoretical framework, the contribution quadrant reflects actions that are perceived as meaningful

when they are done in service of something beyond the self. The results of our study support the

notion that people derive work meaning primarily from this pathway.

In sum, although Study 1 revealed different amounts of work meaning between different social

class groups, the sources of work meaning among classes did not help explain why these differences

exist. Following from the PWF, differences in work volition may be a possible reason why social

class is related to work meaning. Furthermore, the categorical self-report of social class was limited

in Study 1 because it subjectively rather than objectively assessed social class, did not actively

include variables like education and income, and lost information based on the categorical represen-

tation of data. Therefore, we designed Study 2 to address these concerns and test work volition as a potential mediator.

Study 2

Method

Participants. The sample consisted of 252 participants with ages ranging from 18 to 81 ( M ¼ 33.74,

SD ¼ 12.95); 49% ( N ¼ 124) were male and 51% ( N ¼ 128) were female. In total, 83% ( N ¼ 209)

identified as White, 6% ( N ¼ 15) as Asian/Asian American, 4% ( N ¼ 11) as multiracial, 2% ( N ¼ 5)

as African American, 2%

( N ¼

5) as Mexican American, 1%

( N ¼

3) as Central American, .4%

( N ¼ 1) as Puerto Rican, .4% ( N ¼ 1) as Pacific Islander, .4% ( N ¼ 1) as Middle Eastern, and

.4% ( N ¼ 1) as American Indian. In terms of income, 31% ( N ¼ 77) made less than US$25,000 per

year, 43% ( N ¼ 108) made US$26,000–$50,000 per year, 16% ( N ¼ 40) made US$51,000–$75,000

per year, 5% ( N ¼ 13) made $76,000–$100,000 per year, 2% ( N ¼ 6) made US$101,000–$125,000 per

year, 2% ( N ¼ 5) made US$126,000–$150,000 per year, and 1% ( N ¼ 3) made over US$151,000

per year. In terms of highest level of education achieved, 9% ( N ¼ 23) had a high school diploma,

1% ( N ¼ 3) attended vocational school, 28% ( N ¼ 71) had some college, 43% ( N ¼ 109) had a college

degree, and 18% ( N ¼ 46) had attended graduate or professional school. Of the sample, 71% ( N ¼ 180)

were employed full-time and 29% ( N ¼ 72) were employed part-time.

Instruments

Work Meaning. As in Study 1, we used the WAMI (Steger et al., 2012) to measure working meaning.

For this study, the estimated internal consistencies for scores from the three WAMI subscales were


552



Positive Meaning (a ¼ .88), Meaning-Making (a ¼ .85), and Greater Good Motivation (a ¼ .85).

The estimated internal consistency of scale scores for the entire scale was a ¼ .95.

Work Volition. The degree to which individuals felt choice in their work lives despite constraints was

measured with the Work Volition Scale (WVS; Duffy, Diemer et al., 2012b), which is a scale devel-

oped directly within a PWF framework. The scale is measured with 13 items on a 7-point Likert-type

scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The measure is divided into three subscales:

volition (5 items), financial constraints (5 items), and structural constraints (4 items). The volition sub-

scale measures people’s perceived level of ability to make vocational choices. A sample item is, ‘‘I feel

total control over my job choices.’’ The financial constraints measures restrictions on choice based on

finances. A sample item is, ‘‘Due to my financial situation, I need to take any job I can find.’’ Finally,

the structural constraints subscale measures restrictions on choice due to external forces, like the

economy. A sample item is, ‘‘Negative factors outside my personal control had a large impact on

my current career choice.’’ Higher scores are associated with higher volition, financial constraints, and

structural constraints. Duffy, Diemer, Perry, Laurenzi, and Torrey (2012b) found the WVS to load appropriately onto these three factors and to correlate positively with work locus of control and job

satisfaction and negatively with discrimination and career barriers. They found internal consistencies

of a ¼ .78 (volition), a ¼ .81 (financial constraints), and a ¼ .70 (structural constraints) for the three

subscales. The estimated internal consistency reliabilities for scale scores in this study were a ¼ .80

(volition), a ¼ .83 (financial constraints), and a ¼ .78 (structural constraints).

Social Class

Social class was measured in the same way as the objective measure in Study 2. Occupations were

coded using Nakao and Treas’s (1994) occupational prestige scale. Education was measured with asingle item (‘‘What is your highest level of education completed?’’) on a 7-point scale ranging from

Grade school to Graduate/professional school . Income was measured with a single item (‘‘On aver-

age, what is your annual personal income?’’) on a 9-point scale ranging from Less than $25,000 per

year to $200,000 þ per year . These three variables were combined to form the latent social class

variable.

Procedure

Like Study 1, Study 2 used MTurk to recruit participants. A link to the informed consent and the full

survey was posted on MTurk, and participants were compensated US¢50 for joining the study.

Although this was more than the first study, research suggests that the amount of monetary reward

on Mechanical Turk only affects the rate of data collection, not the quality of the data (Buhrmester

et al., 2011). Again, we included three validity check items that asked participants to select a spec-

ified answer. An initial sample of 329 participants completed the survey. From this sample, we

removed participants who were under the age of 18, were unemployed or students, or failed to select

the appropriate response to one of the three validity check items. This resulted in a final total of 252

participants. Of this sample, 23 had 1 or 2 items missing from at least one scale. We retained these

participants in the sample for correlations, but only the 229 participants with complete data were

used for the latent model analyses.

Results

Preliminary Analyses. Before beginning our main analysis, we assessed each variable for normality. Only

education (skewness ¼ 1.21; kurtosis ¼ 1.29) and income (skewness ¼ 1.97; kurtosis ¼ 5.39)

Allan et al. 553

553



had absolute values of skewness and/or kurtosis greater than 1. To normalize education and income, weconducted a series of transformations (square root, logarithmic base 10, and inverse) on each of

the variables and chose the least powerful transformation that most effectively normalized the

individual variable (Tukey, 1977). The logarithmic 10 transformation normalized income

(skewness ¼ .33; kurtosis ¼ .33) and the square root transformation normalized education

(skewness ¼ .60; kurtosis ¼ .20).

Table 2 shows the correlations among our study variables. For the continuous correlations, we

calculated Pearson correlations, but for our two ordinal variables (i.e., education and income), we

calculated Spearman correlations. Work meaning was significantly and largely related to volition

(.58), financial constraints (.56), and structural constraints (.52). It was also significantly related

to prestige (.16), income (.14), and education (.16). Of the social class variables, volition was onlysignificantly related to income (.14); financial constraints was significantly related to prestige

(.16), income (.20), and education (.18); and structural constraints was significantly related

to prestige (.15) and income (.19). Prestige significantly related to income (.37) and education

(.47), and income and education were also significantly correlated (.45).

Measurement Model. Prior to testing the structural model, we tested a measurement of model of the

five latent constructs. To evaluate the models, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis using

maximum likelihood estimation in AMOS 18 (Arbuckle, 2007). We used fit indices that minimized

likelihood of Type 1 and Type II error (Hu & Bentler, 1999). These included the w2 test, the com-

parative fit index (CFI), the root mean squared residual (SRMR), and the root mean square error of

approximation (RMSEA). A significant w2 can indicate poor fit; however, this test is unreliable and

inflated in larger samples (Tabachnick & Fiddel, 2007). In regard to the other indices of fit, Hu and

Bentler (1999) recommend cutoffs close to or greater than .95 for the CFI, close to or less than .08

for the SRMR, and close to or less than .06 for the RMSEA. However, Browne and Cudeck (1993)

argue that RMSEA values from .06 to .08 indicate fair fitting models.

Since there were fewer than 6 items in each volition subscale, we did not create parcels and

allowed individual items to load onto their respective factor. For work meaning, we created

three parcels corresponding to work meaning’s three subscales. Social class was composed

of prestige, income, and education. The measurement model yielded good fit indices: w2(142,

N ¼ 252) ¼ 331.94, p < .001; CFI ¼ .93; SRMR ¼ .06; and RMSEA ¼ .07, p < .01, and all

item/parcels loaded on their hypothesized factor at values of .45 or higher.

Structural Model. Next, we tested the hypothesized, multiple mediator model with social class predict-

ing work meaning through volition, structural constraints, and financial constraints. We allowed the

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Work meaning — 2. Volition .58** — 3. Financial constraints .56** .55** — 4. Structural constraints .52** .60** .65** — 5. Prestige .16** .09 .16** .15* — 6. Income .14* .14* .20** .19** .37** — 7. Education .16** .04 .18** .07 .47** .45** — M 44.35 18.25 21.74 17.33 50.93 2.21 5.49SD 14.93 5.39 7.37 5.83 13.74 1.31 1.25

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


554



mediators to correlate. The structural model also had good fit indices, w2(142, N ¼ 252) ¼ 331.94,

p < .001; CFI ¼ .93; SRMR ¼ .06; and RMSEA ¼ .07, p < .01. It also explained 51% of the variance

in the work meaning factor. The final model with standardized b-weights is depicted in Figure 1.

Indirect Effects. Using AMOS 18, we calculated the bias-corrected confidence intervals (CIs) for

the indirect effects with 1,000 bootstrapped samples (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). These intervals

are significant when they do not include zero. Before adding the mediators to the model, social

class had a significant, positive relation with work meaning (b ¼ .24, p < .01). After the med-

iators were included, social class no longer significantly predicted social class (b ¼ .05, ns).

The model also had good indices of fit, w2(142, N ¼ 252) ¼ 331.94, p < .001; CFI ¼ .93;

SRMR ¼ .06; and RMSEA ¼ .07, p < .01. Moreover, the fit of the model was not significantly

changed after removing the direct effect from social class to work meaning, w2(143, N ¼ 252)

¼ 332.47, p < .001; CFI ¼ .93; SRMR ¼ .06; and RMSEA ¼ .07, p < .01, which also suggests

full mediation. The overall indirect effect including all three mediators was significant (c’ ¼ .15,

standard error [SE ] ¼ .06, CI ¼ [.05, .29]). AMOS 18 does not test individual indirect effects for each mediator, so we used RMediation, which uses the distribution of product coefficients method

to generate CIs for specific indirect effects (Tofighi & MacKinnon, 2011). The indirect effect struc-

tural constraints was not significant (c’ ¼ .01, SE ¼ .03, CI ¼ .07, .03). However, the indirect

effects for both financial constraints (c’ ¼ .08, SE ¼ .04, CI ¼ [.02, .17]) and volition (c’ ¼ .08,

SE ¼ .04, CI ¼ [.01, .16]) were significant.

Discussion

In Study 1, we found a relation between people’s reported level of work meaning and their social

class. The purpose of Study 2 was to attempt to explain this relation with work volition, the per-ceived ability to make occupational choices despite constraints (Duffy, Diemer, et al., 2012b). First,

we aimed to investigate whether work volition was related to social class and to replicate findings

from previous studies showing work meaning was related to work volition and social class. Support-

ing our hypotheses, these variables were interrelated. Partially confirming our hypotheses, work

volition fully mediated the relation between social class and work meaning, but only the financial

constraints and volition subscales were significant mediators.

The PWF suggests that work volition is related to social class, and scholars have asserted that

career barriers in the lower classes may reduce work volition (Blustein et al., 2008). This study

found a weak to moderate relation between social class and work volition, which supports these

arguments (Blustein, 2001). This result logically suggests that social and economic barriers may

lead to reduced volition but is also consistent with the broader findings linking social class to vari-

ables like locus of control, career decision self-efficacy, access to external resources, experience

of discrimination, and perception of career barriers (Blustein et al., 2002; Fuller-Rowell, Evans, &

Ong, 2012; Kraus, Piff, & Keltner, 2009; Lachman & Weaver, 1998; Redonnet et al., 2012;

Thompson & Subich, 2006, 2011). Similar to work volition and social class, no studies have

directly linked work meaning to work volition. However, researchers have linked calling, a similar

construct to work meaning, to work volition (Duffy & Autin, 2013). Extending the findings from

these studies, we found large correlations between work meaning and each subscale of the work

volition construct. This suggests that people who feel like they have choice and freedom in their

career decision making are more likely to report that their work is meaningful.

Our final hypothesis was that the three work volition subscales would fully mediate the relation between social class and work meaning. Supporting this claim, social class ceased to have a relation

with work meaning after controlling for these variables, although only the financial constraints and

volition subscales had significant indirect effects. Though tentative given the lack of longitudinal

Allan et al. 555

555



data, this result suggests that being from a lower of working-class background may increase the

perception that career choices are constrained (Blustein, 2001). In turn, low work volition may hurt

people’s ability to seek out and obtain work that they find personally meaningful. The finding that

financial concerns among the lower and working classes are more salient (Blustein et al., 2002; Brief

et al., 1995) may lead people to choose work that is not intrinsically rewarding and does not neces-

sarily match their values, interests, or skills (Blustein, 2001). Supporting this, several scholars have

suggested that intrinsic motivation is crucial to developing a sense of meaningfulness (Weinstein,

Ryan, & Deci, 2012), and some studies have directly linked meaningful work to intrinsic motivation

(Dik, Sargent, & Steger, 2008; Steger et al., 2012).

Contrary to our hypothesis, structural concerns did not play a role in the relation between social

class and work meaning. This is somewhat surprising, given the impact of external, structural influ-

ences on career choice and development. For example, studies have demonstrated the impact of

racism and discrimination on career development and progress (Tovar-Murray et al., 2012). It is pos-

sible that structural constraints are more subject to moderating variables than financial constraints.

For example, race may impact variables like perceived structural constraints due to discrimination.Related to this, structural constraints may not have been significant due to the lack of diversity in our

sample, as discussed below. Future studies should investigate this possibility by testing whether

variables such as race and disability moderate the relation between social class and structural

constraints.

General Discussion

This study investigated work meaning in the context of the PWF (Blustein et al., 2008). Namely, we

investigated whether people from different social classes had different levels and sources of work

meaning and sought to explain these differences with work volition, the perceived ability to makevocational choices despite constraints. In Study 1, people in the lower and working classes reported

less work meaning than those in the middle and upper classes. However, regardless of class, people

generally cited helping others or contributing to the greater good to be the main source of their

work’s meaning. In Study 2, we attempted to use the PWF concept of work volition to explain the

link between social class and work meaning. Results revealed that volition and financial constraints

fully mediated the relation between social class and work meaning; therefore, constraints associated

with social class may hinder people from choosing work that they find personally meaningful.

Both studies found a consistent positive relation between class and work meaning, and results

suggest that this may be due to people in lower social classes having lower work volition. This does

not necessarily mean that finding meaningful work is not an important need or goal for people in

lower and working classes, and several authors have argued that finding meaning is itself a basic

psychological need (Andersen, Chen, & Carter, 2000; Frankl, 1963). Regardless, the question

remains whether finding meaningful work is a luxury available only to people with relatively high

work volition and low financial constraints. Our results seem to suggest that this is not the case: The

relation between class and work meaning was generally small, and people of all classes reported

similar sources of their work’s meaning. That said future research should seek to better understand

the impact of having lower work meaning for those in the lower and working classes.

As discussed in Study 2, the results of our mediation analysis suggest that people in lower and

working classes may have financial constraints and low volition that hinder their ability to choose

work that’s intrinsically valuable and motivated. Having low work volition may also directly hurt

people’s ability to meet their autonomy needs. However, this explanation is somewhat at odds withour finding that most people cite helping others or contributing to the greater good as the source of

their work’s meaning. Moreover, only a few people mentioned mastery or autonomy as the reason

why their work was meaningful. There are two possible interpretations of this finding. First,


556



prosocial motivations may fundamentally be meeting the psychological need for relatedness. Relat-

edness not only involves interacting with others but also caring for others (Deci & Ryan, 2000),

which is a main component of prosocial behavior. This is evident in studies highlighting the close

relation between relatedness and prosocial behavior. For example, in one study, participants writing

about experiences of relatedness had an increased sense of connectedness, reported increased pro-

social intentions, and engaged in more prosocial behavior (Pavey, Greitemeyer, & Sparks, 2011).

However, this does not explain how social class and work volition play a role in this relation. One

possibility is that low work volition may restrict people from finding prosocial work, but regardless

of social class, most work can be seen as having prosocial impact or contributing to the greater good

in some way (Dik & Duffy, 2012). Weinstein and Ryan (2010) offer a compelling solution to this

problem. In a series of studies, the authors showed that psychological need satisfaction mediates the

relation between prosocial behavior and well-being. However, this was only for volitional prosocial

behavior that participants had chosen themselves. Therefore, high work volition may allow people to

experience work meaning by feeling a sense of autonomy about their prosocial work. This conclu-

sion is beyond the scope of our data, but it fits previous research in this area and offers an intriguingdirection for future research.

Limitations and Future Directions

A major limitation of our studies illustrates Blustein’s (2001) criticism of contemporary vocational

psychology. The two study samples were both largely White, had more income than average, and

were highly educated. Although both studies had representation from all social classes, the lower

and working classes were somewhat underrepresented, at least according to income and education.

This is an inherent problem with online data collection and partly reflects age, race, income, educa-

tion, and gender disparities in those who use and have most access to the Internet (Etter & Perneger,2001; Rhodes, Bowie, & Hergenrather, 2003). Given that we still had good representation of each

class in Study 1 and a good deal of variation in our latent social class variable in Study 2, this bias

does not invalidate the results of our studies. However, results should be replicated with samples that

proportionally reflect class differences in the United States. Moreover, future studies should actively

recruit members of lower social classes, whether participants are being recruited online or from the

community.

Second, interpretation of our results required discussing several key variables that we did not

measure. Specifically, our argument suggests that people with low work volition are less able to

choose jobs that are intrinsically meaningful or meet psychological needs. However, we did not

measure intrinsic motivation, intrinsic goals, or need satisfaction. Although these variables have

been linked to work meaning (Dik et al., 2008; Steger et al., 2012), they have not been studied in

the context of social class and work volition. Future studies should investigate whether intrinsic

motivation mediates the relation between work volition and work meaning. If this were the case,

it would support the psychology of working interpretation of our results and help toward future

model building. Finally, this study did not assess variables at different points in time. Generally,

three waves of data are recommended to confidently assess mediation (Maxwell & Cole, 2007). Not

having longitudinal data negates our ability to determine the temporal relations among the

constructs, and it is therefore impossible to determine cause and effect. Future studies should address

this limitation with longitudinal studies.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-

cation of this article.

Allan et al. 557

557



Funding

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

References

Andersen, S. M., Chen, S., & Carter, C. (2000). Fundamental human needs: Making social cognition relevant.

Psychological Inquiry, 11, 269–275. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_02

Arbuckle, J. L. (2007). Amos (Version 18.0) [Computer Program]. Chicago, IL: SPSS.

Berg, P., & Frost, A. C. (2005). Dignity at work for low wage, low skill service workers. Relations Industrielles/

Industrial Relations, 60, 657–682. doi:10.7202/012339ar

Blustein, D. L. (2001). Extending the reach of vocational psychology: Toward an inclusive and integrated

psychology of working. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 59, 171–182. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1823

Blustein, D. L. (2006). The psychology of working: A new perspective for career development, counseling, and

public policy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Blustein, D. L., Chaves, A. P., Diemer, M. A., Gallagher, L. A., Marshall, K. G., Sirin, S., & Bhati, K. S. (2002).Voices of the forgotten half: The role of social class in the school-towork transition. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 49, 311–323. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.49.3.311

Blustein, D. L., Kenna, A. C., Gill, N., & Devoy, J. E. (2008). The psychology of working: A new framework

for counseling practice and public policy. Career Development Quarterly, 56 , 294–308. doi:10.1002/j.2161-

0045.2008.tb00095.x

Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of

Psychology, 53, 371–399. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135233

Brief, A. P., Konovsky, M. A., Goodwin, R., & Link, K. (1995). Inferring the meaning of work from the effects

of unemployment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 693–711. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.

tb01769.xBrowne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long

(Eds.), Testing structural models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive,

yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6 , 3–5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980

Bunderson, J. S., & Thompson, J. A. (2009). The call of thewild: Zookeepers, callings, and the double-edged sword

of deeply meaningful work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 32–57. doi:10.2189/asqu.2009.54.1.32

Cohen, S., Doyle, W. J., & Baum, A. (2006). Socioeconomic status is associated with stress hormones.

Psychosomatic Medicine, 68, 414–420. doi:10.1097/01.psy.0000221236.37158.b9

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the

self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

DeVaro, J., Li, R., & Brookshire, D. (2007). Analysing the job characteristics model: New support from a cross-

section of establishments. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 18, 986–1003. doi:

10.1080/09585190701321211

Diemer, M. A., Mistry, R. S., Wadsworth, M. E., Lopez, I., & Reimers, F. (2012). Best practices in conceptua-

lizing and measuring social class in psychological science. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy,

1–37.

Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Make your job a calling: How the psychology of vocation can change your life

at work . Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press

Dik, B. J., Duffy, R. D., & Eldridge, B. (2009). Calling and vocation in career counseling: Recommendations

for promoting meaningful work. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 625632. doi:

10.1037/a0015547Dik, B. J., Sargent, A. M., & Steger, M. F. (2008). Career development strivings: Assessing goals and

motivation in career decision-making and planning. Journal of Career Development , 35, 23–41. doi:

10.1177/0894845308317934


558



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, 42–52. doi:10.1037/a0030635

Duffy, R. D., & Autin, K. L. (2013). Disentangling the link between perceiving a calling and living a calling.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 219–227.

Duffy, R. D., Bott, E. M., Allan, B. A., & Torrey, C. L. (2013). Examining a model of life satisfaction among

unemployed adults. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 53–63. doi:10.1037/a0030771

Duffy, R. D., Bott, E. M., Allan, B. A., Torrey, C. L., & Dik, B. J. (2012a). Perceiving a calling, living a calling,

and job satisfaction: Testing a moderated, multiple mediator model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59,

50–59. doi:10.1037/a0026129

Duffy, R. D., Bott, E. M., Torrey, C. L., & Webster, G. D. (2013). Work volition as a critical moderator in the

prediction of job satisfaction. Journal of Career Assessment , 21, 20–31. doi:10.1177/1069072712453831

Duffy, R. D., Diemer, M. A., Perry, J. C., Laurenzi, C., & Torrey, C. L. (2012b). The construction and initial vali-

dation of the work volition scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 80, 400–411. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.04.002

Etter, J. F., & Perneger, T. V. (2001). A comparison of cigarette smokers recruited through the Internet or by

mail. International Journal of Epidemiology, 30, 521–525. doi:10.1093/ije/30.3.521Fernet, C., Gagne, M., & Austin, S. (2010). When does quality of relationships with coworkers predict burnout

over time? The moderating role of work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 31, 1163–1180.

doi:10.1002/job.673

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Frankl, V. E. (1963). Man’s search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy. Oxford, England: Washington

Square Press.

Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis.

Personnel Psychology, 40, 287–322. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00605.x

Fuller-Rowell, T. E., Evans, G. W., & Ong, A. D. (2012). Poverty and health: The mediating role of perceived

discrimination. Psychological Science, 23, 734–739. doi:10.1177/0956797612439720Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the desire to make a prosocial difference. Academy of

Management Review, 32, 393–417. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.24351328

Grant, A. M. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and

boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 108–124. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.108

Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 55, 259–286. doi:10.1037/h0031152

Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 60, 159–170. doi:10.1037/h0076546

Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health

Research, 15, 1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional

criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling , 6 , 155. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual

work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1332–1356. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332

Janicki-Deverts, D., Cohen, S., Adler, N. E., Schwartz, J. E., Matthews, K. A., & Seeman, T. E. (2007).

Socioeconomic status is related to urinary catecholamines in the coronary artery risk development in young

adults (CARDIA) study. Psychosomatic Medicine, 69, 514–520. doi:10.1097/PSY.0b013e3180f60645

Kalleberg, A. L. (1977). Work values and job rewards: A theory of job satisfaction. American Sociological

Review, 42, 124–143.

Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., & Keltner, D. (2009). Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 97 , 992–1004. doi:10.1037/a0016357

Lachman, M. E., & Weaver, S. L. (1998). The sense of control as a moderator of social class differences in health

and well-being. Journal of personality and social psychology, 74, 763. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.763

Allan et al. 559

559



Liu, W., Ali, S., Soleck, G., Hopps, J., Dunston, K., & Pickett, T. R. (2004). Using social class in counseling

psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 3–18. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.3

Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychological

Methods, 12, 23–44. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.23

McNeese-Smith, D. K., & McNeese-Smith. (1999). A content analysis of staff nurse descriptions of job satisfac-

tion and dissatisfaction. Journal of Advanced Nursing , 29, 1332–1341. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.01018.x

Mpofu, E., Stevens, C., Biggs, H. C., & Johnson, E. T. (2012). Socio-structural influences on the work partic-

ipation of refugees: An exploratory systematic mixed studies review. Vulnerable Groups & Inclusion, 3. doi:

10.3402/vgi.v3i0.16066

Nakao, K., & Treas, J. (1994). Updating occupational prestige and socioeconomic scores: How the new mea-

sures measure up. Sociological Methodology, 24, 1–72.

Parham, T., & Helms, J. E. (1985). Relation of racial identity attitudes to self-actualization and affective states

of black students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 3, 2431–2440. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.32.3.431

Pavey, L., Greitemeyer, T., & Sparks, P. (2011). Highlighting relatedness promotes prosocial motives and

behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37 , 905–917. doi:10.1177/0146167211405994Pratt, M. G., & Ashforth, B. E. (2003). Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work. In K. S. Cameron,

J. E. Dutton & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 309–327). San Francisco, CA:

Berrett-Koehler.

Redonnet, B., Chollet, A., Fombonne, E., Bowes, L., & Melchior, M. (2012). Tobacco, alcohol, cannabis and

other illegal drug use among young adults: The socioeconomic context. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 121,

231–239. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.09.002

Reeve, J., Nix, G., & Hamm, D. (2003). Testing models of the experience of self-determination in intrinsic

motivation and the conundrum of choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 375–392. doi:10.1037/

0022-0663.95.2.375

Rhodes, S. D., Bowie, D. A., & Hergenrather, K. C. (2003). Collecting behavioral data using the world wide web: Considerations for researchers. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 57 , 68–73.

doi:10.1136/jech.57.1.68

Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and

review. Research in Organizational Behavior , 30, 91–127. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001

Schaafsma, J. (2011). Discrimination and subjective well-being: The moderating roles of identification with

the heritage group and the host majority group. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 786–795. doi:

10.1002/ejsp.825

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures

and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7 , 422–445.

Smith, P., Caputi, P., & Crittenden, N. (2012). How are women’s glass ceiling beliefs related to career success?

Career Development International , 17 , 458–474. doi:10.1108/13620431211269702

Sprouse, J. (2011). A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in

linguistic theory. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 155–167. doi:10.3758/s13428-010-0039-7

Stacey, C. L. (2005). Finding dignity in dirty work: The constraints and rewards of low wage home care labour.

Sociology of Health & Illness, 27 , 831–854. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2005.00476.x

Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work: The work and meaning inventory

(WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment , 20, 322–337. doi:10.1177/1069072711436160

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Thompson, M. N., & Subich, L. M. (2006). The relation of social status to the career decision-making process.

Journal of Vocational Behavior , 69, 289–301. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2006.04.008

Thompson, M. N., & Subich, L. M. (2011). Social status identity: Antecedents and vocational outcomes. TheCounseling Psychologist , 39, 735–763. doi:10.1177/0011000010389828

Tofighi, D., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2011). RMediation: An R package for mediation analysis confidence

intervals. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 692–700.


560



Tovar-Murray, D., Jenifer, E. S., Andrusyk, J., D’Angelo, R., & King, T. (2012). Racism-related stress and

ethnic identity as determinants of African American college students’ career aspirations. Career

Development Quarterly, 60, 254–262. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2012.00021.x

Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior and

its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98,

222–244. doi:10.1037/a0016984

Weinstein, N., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2012). Motivation, meaning, and wellness: A self-determination

perspective on the creation and internalization of personal meanings and life goals. In P. P. Wong (Ed.),

The human quest for meaning: Theories, research, and applications (2nd ed., pp. 81–106). New York,

NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Allan et al. 561

561

Documents

Examining Social Class and Work Meaning Within the Psychology of Working Framework_allan_autin_duffy_2014