| Abstract: |
While a positive view of calling has been ubiquitous since its introduction
into the literature over two decades ago, research remains unsettled about the
extent to which it contributes to various aspects of the good life: an optimal
way of living well via worthwhile endeavors. Further, scholars have identified
two conceptual types of calling, marked by internal versus external foci; yet
their differential impact on outcomes indicative of the good life, such as
eudaimonic and hedonic well-being (characterized by the experience of purpose
and meaning versus pleasure and happiness, respectively), is unknown. Through
a meta-analysis of 201 studies, we provide the first systematic review focused
on these two fundamental theoretical issues in the calling literature: how
strongly related callings are to outcomes in the domains of work and life and
which type of calling (internally or externally focused) more strongly
predicts these outcomes, if either. We find that callings more strongly relate
to outcomes indicative of the good life than recently argued. We further find
that callings are more strongly linked to work than to life outcomes and to
eudaimonic than to hedonic outcomes. The two types of calling converge in
being associated with many similar outcomes, but they show some divergence:
internally focused callings are more positively related to hedonic outcomes
and less positively related to eudaimonic outcomes, relative to externally
focused callings. This finding supports a view of callings as hierarchically
structured, with a higher-order calling factor composed of two correlated yet
distinct lower-order calling types. Integrating our meta-analytic findings
with relevant literatures, we propose a theoretical model that addresses
psychological and social need fulfillment through which different types of
callings contribute to the good life. |