CCC Manuscript 2022 Distributable

Running head: Calling across cultures
Is Calling Conceptualized Equivalently across Cultures?

A Comparative Study across Six Countries
Vianello, M.1, Dalla Rosa, A.1, Buis, B. C2., D’Silva, N. A.3, Gomez, J.4, Karabati, S.5,
Lysova, E. I.6, Pan, J7.
1. University of Padova, School of Psychology, 2. Northern Illinois University,

Department of Management, 3. Xavier School of Management, 4. Shailesh J. Mehta
School of Management, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay 5. Istanbul Bilgi
University, Department of Business, 6. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of
Management and Organisation; 7. Tianjin University, College of Management and
Economics
Author Note
The authors declared that there were no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship or
the publication of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michelangelo Vianello, Email:
michelangelo.vianello@unipd.it.
Contributions of authors1
Designed the study: Michelangelo Vianello, Anna Dalla Rosa, Brittany C. Buis, Evgenia I.
Lysova, Nelson A. D’Silva.
Developed materials: Anna Dalla Rosa, Michelangelo Vianello, Brittany C. Buis, Nelson A.
D’Silva, Evgenia I. Lysova, Serdar Karabati, Jince Gomez, Jingzhou Pan.
Performed and interpreted statistical analyses: Anna Dalla Rosa, Michelangelo Vianello
Coordinated Data Collection: Michelangelo Vianello, Anna Dalla Rosa.
Collected the data: Brittany C. Buis, Anna Dalla Rosa, Nelson A. D’Silva, Jince Gomez,
Serdar Karabati, Evgenia I. Lysova, Jingzhou Pan, Michelangelo Vianello.
Wrote report: Michelangelo Vianello, Anna Dalla Rosa.
Revised and edited the report: Brittany C. Buis, Anna Dalla Rosa, Nelson A. D’Silva, Jince
Gomez, Serdar Karabati, Evgenia I. Lysova, Jingzhou Pan, Michelangelo Vianello.
1
When no differences in the amount of contribution were identified, authors were listed in alphabetical order.
1
Abstract
The concept of calling is deeply rooted in western culture, but research in other cultures is
increasing. Yet, whether calling is conceptualized equivalently across cultures is an open and
pressing question. In this paper, we draw on a unified multidimensional conceptualization of
calling to investigate the cross-cultural generalizability of this construct across six nations (N
= 2491): India, Turkey, China, Italy, the United States, and The Netherlands. We observed that
the multidimensional structure of calling and the relative importance of the different
dimensions of calling in defining the construct are the same across cultures, and that the overall
level of calling is surprisingly higher in non-western countries. We also observed small cross-
cultural differences in the intensity with which people from different countries approach their
calling domain. Comparisons conducted at the level of facets indicated that Italian and Dutch
participants scored lower in Transcendent Summons and Pervasiveness, while Chinese
participants scored the highest. Callings in India are especially high in the Purpose and Identity
components. Overall, these results are compatible with the notion that calling is a universal
human experience, and that culture differently influences the levels of calling’s dimensions but
not their importance in defining the construct.
Keywords: Career Calling; Calling orientation; Cross-cultural research; Measurement

invariance; Equivalence
2
Is Calling Conceptualized Equivalently Across Cultures?

A Comparative Study across Six Countries
Calling, one of the most intense, deeply satisfying and meaningful experiences of work,
is also one of the most far-reaching in history. The idea that people may pursue their work as a
calling has existed for centuries. In recent decades, scholarly interest has piqued, resulting in
several special issues (Dik & Domene, 2015; Duffy & Dik, 2012; Lysova et al., 2019), reviews
(Duffy & Dik, 2013; Schabram, Nielsen, & Thompson, 2022; Thompson & Bunderson, 2019),
and conceptual works (e.g., Elangovan et al., 2010; Duffy et al., 2018). Prior research indicates
that calling is associated with many beneficial outcomes, such as higher work engagement,
well-being, satisfaction, employability, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship
behavior, and job performance (e.g. Cardador et al., 2011; Dobrow et al., 2019; Hirschi, 2012;
Lysova et al., 2018; Vianello et al., 2022; Xie et al., 2017). In the Western context, research
reflects the influence of the Protestant Reformation on Western societies’ worldviews. This
historical root of calling poses the question of the generalizability of the concept to cultures
beyond the West and across cultures: Calling may have a different meaning in non-Western
societies and in cultures influenced by other religious traditions.
Despite a modest yet promising increase in studies conducted in non-Western cultures
(e.g. Park et al., 2016; Zhang, Dik, et al., 2015), researchers often apply the concept of calling
to new samples as it has been investigated in Western cultures, assuming that calling is
equivalent across cultures and independent from the cultural context. However, little efforts
have been made to test this assumption. Therefore, the understanding of whether calling is a
culturally specific or a universal human experience remains limited, and gives rise to important
theoretical and practical consequences.
Definitions of calling emphasize either the importance of a transcendent summons and
prosocial duty, or the inner requirements of passion and self-fulfillment (Thompson &
Bunderson, 2019). This may be understood on a continuum, where conceptualizations on the
first side of the continuum (Dik & Shimizu, 2019) are deemed “neoclassical” and focus more
outside of oneself (e.g. Dik & Duffy, 2009), whereas those on the other side of the continuum
have been termed “modern” and are more focused on inner needs and desires (e.g. Dobrow &
Tosti-Kharas, 2011). To sufficiently address different perspectives, in this study we draw on
the integrative conceptualization recently suggested by Vianello et al. (2018), which
incorporates the components of calling included with prior definitions together, hence
reflecting both transcendent and internal sources of calling. We define calling as a passionate
and transcendent summons to pursue a career that motivates people to sacrifice other areas of
life for the common good, which pervades all the dimensions of life, is part of an individual’s
identity, and gives meaning and purpose to life. This conceptualization has been observed to
be invariant through time and across study domains (e.g., psychology, engineering, medical
sciences; Vianello et al., 2018).
The lack of consensus on the conceptualization of calling also reflects the limited
knowledge on whether the meaning of the concept is similar or different across cultures
(Lysova et al., 2019; Schabram et al., 2022). Some expectations for the differences in the
relevance and importance of the components of calling across cultures were noted by Dik and
Duffy (2009). For instance, a sense of purpose might be more important in individualistic
societies while prosocial orientation might be more important in collectivistic societies. In
addition, Zhang, Dik, et al. (2015) argued that calling may have a different meaning in China,
where pursuing a calling may mean fulfilling an order or mission from the emperor or superior
authority, which gives the individual a strong sense of duty and responsibility. There seems to
be theoretical support for the variation in the experience of calling across cultures. At the same
time, however, there is evidence that most world cultures share some common work-related
3
beliefs (Niles, 1999). Indeed, studies on calling conducted in non-Western countries seem to
suggest that academics and practitioners in many different nations around the world see calling
as salient in their cultures and worth investigating (Nath, 2017; Kim, Praskova, et al., 2017;
Zhang, Herrmann, et al., 2015). Yet, cross-cultural direct comparisons are very rare. Most
studies adopted a so-called imposed etic approach (Schaffer & Riordan, 2003), which assumes
that shared frames of references exist across different cultures and ignores culture-specific emic
factors. In other words, imposed etic studies on calling assume that the concept of calling (and
its measurement) exists equally across all cultures. However, the opposite assumption is more
likely to be true if we consider the strong influence that the Protestant culture had on the
present-day definition of the construct.
Some attempts to investigate the context-specific meaning of calling have been made
in China and India (Nath, 2017; Tian et al. 2018; Zhang, Dik, et al., 2015). Few studies
investigated the cross-cultural equivalence of existing measures of calling. Specifically, these
studies were conducted in the United States and India (Autin et al., 2017), the United States
and South Korea (Ahn et al., 2021), and the United States and Italy (Gerdel et al., 2022).
However, no study compared more than two nations nor more than three out of the seven
dimensions of calling that can be found in the literature (Dik & Shimizu, 2019; Thompson &
Bunderson, 2019; Vianello et al., 2018). In addition, no studies compared different non-western
countries such as China and India with each other. This situation poses a limit to the
generalization of the concept of calling to non-Western cultures, and neglects the importance
of investigating differences both across and within Western and non-Western countries.
The current corpus of studies also highlights that theory-driven research was mostly
conducted. Researchers assumed construct and measurement equivalence rather than testing it
before interpreting the results as theoretically informative. Construct and measurement
equivalence are yet necessary to avoid misleading interpretation of the results. For instance,
one of the propositions of the Work as a Calling Theory (WCT; Duffy et al., 2018) suggests
that pursuing a calling is dependent on individuals’ access to opportunity. Differences in calling
across countries that differ in wealth, education, and social status mobility may happen to be
interpreted as evidence supporting the WCT prediction; yet, if the factor structure, loadings,
and item intercepts are not the same across nations, results could actually support the opposite
conclusion (van de Vijver & Leung, 2011, 2021).
In summary, although research on calling has been conducted on an increasing number
of different cultures, the equivalence of the concept of calling has not been adequately
investigated, construct and measurement equivalence of existing measures has been assumed
rather than tested, and the influence of culture on calling has been overlooked. We know very
little about how calling is conceptualized in populations influenced by traditions that are
different from those in which calling was first conceptualized, such as Buddhism,
Confucianism, or Hinduism. Calling might be a universal human experience, and researchers
might have overstated the importance of its Western origins. Alternatively, calling might
change in meaning across cultures, and researchers might have overstated the generalizability
of previous empirical evidence.
Drawing on a large multi-cultural sample (N = 2491), this paper bridges the current gap
of knowledge regarding the cross-cultural generalizability of calling by investigating its
construct and measurement equivalence across India, Turkey, China, Italy, the United States,
and the Netherlands. This study informs the theory on calling in terms of the extent to which
such an apparently Western concept is experienced in non-Western countries. Also, we
contribute to the debate surrounding the conceptualization of calling by testing cross-culturally
a conceptualization that integrates both modern and neo-classical facets. The results of this
study may be useful in validating many previous research that assumed, rather than tested,
construct equivalence. Results of this research will be useful to practitioners working with
4
expatriates or, more generally, with clients that have been influenced by a diverse cultural
heritage, regardless of their nationality.
In the following paragraphs, we present an overview of the influences that the western
culture had on the construct of calling and we explore similarities that exist on the approach
toward work that the most widespread religious traditions describe and prescribe. In addition,
an extensive review of research on calling that has been conducted outside the United States is
presented.
Theoretical background
Conceptualization of calling: Western perspective
The concept of calling is deeply rooted in the Western religious history. More
specifically, it has been suggested that calling is a Christian concept that does not appear in
other religions (Cahalan & Shuurman, 2016). Born as a way to describe God’s will, the concept
of calling has been in use for at least 2000 years. In the Old Testament of the Bible, for instance,
God created day and night by naming them (“God called the light Day and the darkness he
called Night”; King James Bible, 1769/2017, Genesis 1:5). God calls people to become what
they are not yet, but destined to be. Later on, in the New Testament of the Bible, the concept of
calling becomes much closer to that of salvation, which is achieved following Christ as a
disciple. Indeed, calling was used as a way to define candidates for clergy or those who feel
destined to a more rigorous observance of faith, such as monks or nuns. Called people are
chosen and glorified by God. Hence, they find their destiny and achieve their meaning in life
fulfilling God's call (Cahalan, 2016). God’s, or Christ’s, call is awe inspiring, and expects a
totalizing answer. A calling links faith and the Christian values of generosity, courage, love,
and respect to every sphere of a person’s life. In the Christian culture, calling is a pervasive
urge to enact those values holistically.
The secularization of the concept, which progressively brought calling closer to the
domain of work ethics, initially began with the Protestant reform: Work became a way to realize
one’s particular calling, as opposed to the general or spiritual calling to become a Christian, be
baptized, and take up the duties of the Christian life (Schuurman, 2016). Work as a calling
turned out to be a way to find purpose in life through prosociality and self-transcendence. These
components of a calling are now present in the neoclassical definitions of work as a calling.
For instance, Dik and Duffy (2009) defined calling as “a transcendent summons, experienced
as originating beyond the self, to approach a particular life role in a manner oriented toward
demonstrating or deriving a sense of purpose or meaningfulness and that holds other-oriented
values and goals as primary sources of motivation.” (p. 427). The Christian tradition and the
Protestant work ethic have had strong influences in the contemporary, mostly secular, concept
of calling that is in use in the scientific study on the meaning of work (Steger et al., 2010).
“Modern” approaches to the study of calling for work focus on the importance of passion,
exemplified by Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas’ (2011) definition of calling as a “consuming,
meaningful passion” (p. 1001). Many definitions emphasize the connection to one’s identity
when defining the concept of calling (e.g. Berg et al., 2010; Wrzesniewski et al., 1997).
Christian roots are thus evident in the modern approaches as well, specifically in the key
components of pervasiveness, identity, sacrifice, and passion (whose etymology literally means
“to suffer with”; Dobrow, 2013).
The diversity of approaches to defining calling continues to fuel conceptual debates on
the topic. In response to this debate, recently, an attempt has been made by Vianello et al.
(2018) to integrate the neoclassic and modern approaches to the conceptualization of calling by
providing a multi-dimensional holistic conceptualization and operationalization of the calling
concept. The authors suggested that calling incorporates the following seven components:
passion, sacrifice, transcendent summons, prosocial orientation, pervasiveness, purposeful
work, and identity. The passion component reflects the deeply satisfying and enjoyable feeling
associated in carrying out activities related to the calling domain. The sacrifice component
5
reflects individuals’ willingness to sacrifice other areas of their lives to pursue their calling.
Transcendent summons refers to the presence of a transcendent drive toward engaging in
calling-related activities. The prosociality component refers to the perception that calling-
related activities are useful to others or the society in general, either directly or indirectly. The
pervasiveness component refers to a constant presence of the calling domain in individuals'
thoughts and reasoning. The purposefulness component reflects the extent to which
engagement in the calling domain provides the opportunity to find a purpose in life. Finally,
the identity component refers to the importance of calling in defining individuals, and how
strongly they associate their identity with the calling domain.
The strong influence that the Western, predominantly Christian, culture had on the
contemporary concept of calling may indeed lead people to think that calling is not
generalizable to other cultures in the world. Examining whether and how religious traditions in
non-Western culture shape the conceptualization of calling may therefore be theoretically
useful to develop a prediction on whether calling generalizes to non-Western cultures.
The concept of calling in other religious traditions
In this section, we explore whether the components of calling, rather than the overarching
concept, are present in other religious traditions such as Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism,
Confucianism, and Islam.
Judaism. A number of Jewish scholars and rabbis would likely say that Judaism has no
concept of vocation or calling. The suggestion that God had communicated direction for an
individual’s life in a supernatural act of “divine speech” would seem arrogant or foolish in a
Jewish context. Yet, if calling refers to pursuing a sense of meaning, purpose, and identity, then
it is simply another name for the kind of life that Jewish tradition describes and prescribes
(Eilberg, 2016). A substantial majority of the American Jewish population, for instance, holds
primarily secular attitudes, where being Jewish is mainly a matter of ancestry and culture (Pew
Research Center, 2021). Accordingly, living out a calling means finding a path in work and life
that aligns with their own deepest sense of meaning, purpose, and righteousness, which is very
similar to the secular concept of calling that is currently studied in the scientific literature.
Interestingly, in the Jewish tradition, a calling does not need to come from outside as “the
human heart contains all the goodness (even the divine essence) needed for any human life”
(Eilberg, 2016, p. 25).
Hinduism. Moving eastward, the system of Castes that exists in India may lead people
to think that the Hindu tradition favors hereditary work and family legacy rather than free
choice (Rambachan, 2016). Interestingly, family legacy is considered a source of summons in
the Western calling literature (Dik & Duffy, 2009). Also, the Hindu tradition explicitly suggests
how to choose and live one’s work according to one’s own potential and a concern for the
common good. The sacred text Bhagavadgītā explains two inseparable concepts that are close
to the western concept of calling: Svabhāva (one’s own nature) and Svadharma (the activity in
which people express their Svabhāva). Svabhāva is used to speak and commend work that flows
out of one’s nature (svabhavaprahbavair), that is born of one’s nature (svabhāvajam), and that
is ordained by one’s nature (svabhāvaniyatam). It conveys the idea that self-understanding and
deeper fulfillment are more important than ability and competence while making a vocational
choice (Rambachan, 2016). It is clear in the Bhagavadgītā that neglecting work that flows into
one’s own nature brings frustration and unhappiness, resembling the Western experiences of
frustration, stress, and lower life satisfaction that have been observed to be related with
unanswered callings (Berg et al., 2010; Duffy et al., 2016). The second concept, Svadharma,
parallels the prosocial component of calling. It refers to the duty or moral obligation that people
have to reciprocate what they receive from outside. In the Hindu tradition, everyone exists in a
complex web of relationships that includes other human beings, other species, and the natural
world, and each one has a moral obligation to contribute to the whole of which they are part
and which makes existence possible. Dharma is one of the four goals of a full human life
6
(together with artha/wealth, kama/pleasure, and moksha/liberation), and makes unity possible
and the flourishing of individuals, families, and communities (Rambachan, 2016). Hence, in
the Hindu tradition, the realization of individuals’ potential and their personal identity is
important not only for personal fulfillment, which parallels the purposefulness dimension of
calling, but also for the common good, which corresponds to the prosocial orientation
dimension of calling. Svadharma helps to see work as useful to the universal community to
which individuals belong (Rambachan, 2016). Without Svadharma, Svabhāva may lack
purpose and direction. Without Svabhāva, Svadharma impedes one’s capacity to give.
Buddhism, which emerged as a rejection of the Hindu religious system that divides
society into castes, is especially interesting for the study of calling because it is a philosophical
doctrine and a religion in which divinities (Deva) cannot offer salvation. For this reason, it is
possible to talk of inner callings, or callings without God (Unno, 2016). Buddhism originated
from Siddharta Gautama (the awakened Buddha), who used to be a warrior and began his
spiritual journey due to an inner calling that was rooted in a deep dissatisfaction with a life of
privileges. Work, in the Mahayana tradition (one of the two main existing branches of
Buddhism), is a way to achieve autonomy, hence an act of generosity toward society:
Autonomous individuals release the society from the burden of caring about their subsistence.
Importantly, work is also a way to foster personal development and to achieve awareness and
awakening, ways that Buddhism prescribes in order to connect with the deepest and truest self.
The incompatibility between calling and career has been a topic of discussion in modern
Buddhism, resembling one of the earliest conceptualizations of calling in the scientific
literature, which proposed separate job, career, or calling orientations (Wrzesniewski et al.,
1997). In 2013, the Dalai Lama answered a question about how an individual can be altruistic
and enlightened if the professional world compels people to be self-centered and aggressive.
His answer suggested that to help others, people must be fit and healthy, spiritually and
economically. To some extent, Buddhism is in itself an approach to life and work that fosters
well-being through self-transcendence and prosociality, and similarly to the Christian tradition,
urges one to enact these values in every part of one’s own life.
Confucianism. In this tradition, which does not offer salvation, the ultimate calling is to
become a benevolent human being who expresses full humanity in relationships with others
(Berkson, 2016). Indeed, well-being comes from harmony with the social environment: The
self is relational by definition, and the development of the self through awareness is the ultimate
achievement (Berkson, 2016). Even if the word “calling” has no exact equivalent in Daoist or
Confucian traditions, approaching work and life in general as a source of purpose, self-
transcendence, prosociality, and destiny (among others) is a concept that is present in Confucian
texts. Self-transcendence and prosociality can be found in the Dao (Way), which refers both to
the way things are (i.e. how people should live together in society) and the way that one should
live to achieve harmony with the way things are (Berkson, 2016).
The most salient component of calling in Confucianism and Daoism is prosociality:
One must use their gifts in the service of others. A concept similar to Dao found in the Hindu
tradition is the Svabhāva-Svadharma pair. At the same time, Confucianism is similar to the
Jewish and Buddhist tradition in that calling comes from within individuals. According to
Berkson (2016), it comes from one’s heaven-endowed heart (according to Mengzi’s classic),
and from the inborn spontaneous inclinations, tendencies, desires, preferences, and capacities
(qi suo shu, “what is received”). Self-transcendence is present in the increasingly larger levels
of relationships that the human project of self-cultivation has to achieve. Indeed, cultivating the
self means understanding the relation of the self with the family, the society, and the larger
macrocosmic level (Great Learning sacred text - Dàxué, as cited in Berkson, 2016). Destiny is
present in the concept of Tian (heaven), which is a moral force that moves individuals in the
direction of goodness and harmony, such as God in a Deist tradition. Tian provides guidance
and support to those who act in accord with the destiny it decrees (Berkson, 2016). Yi
7
(“righteousness” or “dutifulness”), which involves notions of what is proper for one to do given
who one is, resembles concepts that we can find in the contemporary scientific literature on
calling (“that place [...] that one feels destined to fill”; Bunderson & Thompson, 2009, p. 33).
Islam. According to some authors, the Islamic view of work and Islamic work ethic
considerations have either been misunderstood or not widely studied (Ahmad & Owojemi,
2012; Ali & Al-Owaihan, 2008). Despite this, work is part and parcel of the Islamic tradition,
as well as the concept of calling (e.g., Muhammad began “reciting” the Quran when Gabriel
the Archangel appeared to him; Kelsay, 2016). According to the sacred book of Islam, the
Qur’an, and the teachings of Sunnah, people should fulfill their job for the societal obligation
with the purpose of seeking the pleasure of Allah (Hassan, 1988). The Islamic Work Ethic
emphasizes that work must be beneficial and meaningful, since it is a means to foster personal
growth and social relations (Ali et al., 2008). Muslims see work as a way to find meaning in
life and personal accomplishment (Ali et al., 2008), but only if work is intentional, purposeful,
and legal, which are the three pillars of a good action, or good work: (a) a good intention to
pleasure Allah (Niyya); (b) the use of means (Akhd bil Asbab) such as people’s knowledge,
skills, and talents; and (c) excellence (Ihsan), which comes after commitment, patience,
motivation, and sacrifice.
In summary, although many (if not all) scholars would argue that calling is a Christian
concept that does not appear in other religions, a deeper analysis suggests that many religious
traditions actually prescribe, suggest, or at least implicitly include a reflection on the
importance of approaching work as a way to find a purpose in life and to build a personal
identity, to help family, friends, or the larger society, even indirectly, and to answer a
transcendent summons, either coming from within or from a greater entity. It is therefore
reasonable to expect that approaching work as a calling is common to many different cultures
around the world, regardless of whether the source of that calling comes from within or from
outside.
The scientific study of calling across cultures
In this section, we review prior research that touches on the influence of culture on calling. In
particular, we review prior studies on calling conducted in different countries, studies that show
culturally-unique conceptualizations of calling, and culturally-specific measurements of
calling.
Studies conducted with an imposed etic approach. The majority of studies on calling
have been conducted in the United States and Europe. In Europe, calling has been investigated
in such countries as Germany (e.g. Hagmaier & Abele, 2012; Hirschi, 2011), Hungary (Horvath
& Hollosy-Vadasz, 2019), Italy (e.g., Dalla Rosa, Vianello, & Anselmi, 2019; Vianello et al.,
2020), Lithuania (Goštautaitė et al., 2020; Ziedelis, 2018), Romania (Dumulescu et al., 2015),
Russia (Beloborodova & Leontiev, 2019), and The Netherlands (Lysova & Khapova, 2019).
Studies conducted in non-western societies mainly focused on the relation between calling and
other constructs in its nomological network (e.g., work engagement, career commitment, job
satisfaction and work performance) using theories and measures of calling developed in
Western cultures. Calling has been investigated in Africa with participants from Nigeria (Ugwu
& Onyishi, 2018) and South Africa (Willemse & Deacon, 2015). Research on calling has also
been conducted in Asian countries such as China (e.g., Lan et al., 2013; Tian et al., 2018;
Zhang, Dik, et al., 2015); India (Autin et al., 2017; Douglass et al., 2016); Indonesia (Yuliawati
& Ardian, 2020; Riasnugrahani et al., 2019); Israel (Lazar et al., 2016); Pakistan (Afsar et al.,
2019); the Philippines (in English language; Presbitero & Teng-Calleja, 2020); South Korea
(e.g. Lee, 2016; Kim, Praskova, & Lee, 2017; Shin et al., 2014); and Taiwan (Han & Hwang,
2021). The results of these studies suggest that the western concept of calling is relevant and
applicable in these cultures. Yet, the presence of culture-specific features of calling was not
investigated, and construct and measurement equivalence were assumed rather than tested.
8
Emic studies on the conceptualization of calling. The question of how participants from
non-western cultures conceptualize calling has been investigated in India and China. Nath
(2017) interviewed 72 medical school students (in Hindi language) with the aim of
understanding the factors that shape a calling orientation toward work in the Indian context.
Qualitative analyses identified three factors: the recognition of talent in the calling domain, a
sense of destiny, and a positive emotional reaction to the experience of helping others. The
components of destiny and prosociality can also be found in the western concept of calling
(Bunderson & Thompson, 2007; Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas, 2011). Zhang, Dik, et al. (2015)
identified four aspects of calling in Chinese participants. Three of them are largely overlapping
with the western concept: guiding force (sense of duty or destiny, mission, collective
expectation), meaning and purpose (personal meaning and value, sense of fulfillment), and
altruism (positive impact, benefiting others, otherwise called prosocial orientation). A fourth
dimension is culture-specific (active tendency), and was eliminated from the Chinese Calling
Scale that has been used in subsequent studies by the same authors (see e.g. Zhang, Herrmann,
et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2018).
Studies that focused on the measurement of calling. A handful of studies were published
that developed culture-specific measures of calling (Zhang, Hermann, et al., 2015), or validated
translations of calling scales developed in Western cultures (Kim et al., 2017; Shim & Yoo,
2012). These measures of calling were sometimes used extensively, such as in the case of the
Korean version of the Calling and Vocation Questionnaire (CVQ-K; Shim & Yoo, 2012) and
the Chinese Calling Scale (CCS; Zhang, Hermann, et al., 2015), even if no tests of construct or
measurement invariance were conducted. This situation limits the interpretability of cross-
cultural comparisons both in the levels of calling and in its relations with other variables. For
instance, a study in South Korea focused on the relation between calling and satisfaction,
observing that work volition mediates the calling/satisfaction relation in South Korea whereas
work hope was the mediator in the United States (Ahn et al., 2021). These results may also be
explained by a lack of strict invariance (equal error variances): If measurement error variance
is not the same across samples, measures of association such as correlations and regression
parameters may differ even if their true values in the population are the same.
Recently, some attempts have been made to test measurement equivalence of calling
scales comparatively across two cultures (Autin et al., 2017; Ahn et al., 2021; Gerdel et al.,
2022). Autin et al. (2017) examined measurement equivalence of both perceiving and living a
calling, using the CVQ (Dik et al. 2012) and the Living a Calling Scale (LCS; Duffy, Bott,
Allan, Torrey & Dik, 2012) across two samples of U.S. (N = 336) and Indian (N = 321) workers.
Both samples were provided with the original English version of the scales. Results supported
configural invariance for the CVQ-presence scale as composed by three dimensions:
Purposeful work, Transcendent Summons and Prosocial Orientation.. Hence, across two
samples composed of U.S. and Indian participants, the same items measuring the extent to
which participants perceive a calling share the same number of factors. Configural (i.e. equality
of factor structure) and metric invariance (i.e., equality of factor loadings) of the LCS was
supported. Evidence of metric invariance for the CVQ was mixed, suggesting that participants
in these two cultures might differ at the level of single items, rather than at the level of the latent
trait they are expected to measure (e.g., Purpose). Further investigations are clearly needed to
understand which facets are more important in one culture than the other, and to generalize
these results to Hindi-speaking participants.
Ahn et al. (2021) tested metric invariance of the CVQ (Dik et al., 2012) between a U.S.
(N = 274) and South Korean sample (N = 210). The authors tested the metric invariance of the
second-order structure of the CVQ together with the metric invariance of all the other variables
in their study. They computed composite scores of the three dimensions of calling in the CVQ
(Purposeful work, Prosocial orientation, and Transcendent Summons) and tested whether these
three loadings to the higher order latent trait of calling were equal across nations. Results
9
supported invariance, yet more research is needed to understand whether single items of the
CVQ were interpreted differently across nations or whether measurement bias was present in
the mean and/or variance of the calling factor.
Another study that investigated equivalence in the conceptualization of calling was
conducted by Gerdel et al. (2022). The authors found support for partial strict invariance across
U.S. (N = 165) and Italian participants (N = 1246) of a short unidimensional calling scale. The
authors found support for invariance of the structure, item loadings and error variances, but
non-invariance for two item intercepts. Clearly, further investigation is needed to overcome
the limits of the small U.S. sample in this study, to understand whether cross-cultural
differences in means are observed when multiple-item scales are employed, and to generalize
these results to non-western cultures.
In sum, we can see that there has been an increasing interest around the world in the
study of calling. The results of these studies suggest that the Western conceptualization of
calling can be relevant in non-Western contexts. Yet, direct tests of the hypothesis that career
calling is conceptualized equivalently across different cultures are still lacking.
Method
Procedure
Data were collected in each country by using an online survey hosted in Qualtrics. Only after
the informed consent available in the first page was signed, participants were able to access the
survey for self-administration. The study was approved for data collection in the Netherlands,
the United States, India, and Italy by the Institutional Review Boards (IRB) of a public
university in The Netherlands. The study was approved for data collection in the United States
and Turkey by the IRB of an American public university and a private university in Turkey,
respectively. While there is no formal IRB available in China, the data collection plan was
reviewed by three faculties to ensure it complies to the ethical standards of the EU regulation
(GDPR n. 2016/679), the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments, and national
specific regulations.
Data collection was managed by at least one research coordinator in each country.
Participants were recruited through convenience sampling among active college students
enrolled in bachelor or master’s degree programs in business, administrative studies, or
economics. Data collection stopping rule was based on the statistical power simulations present
in the literature and was set at 300 subjects (French & Finch, 2006; Meade & Bauer, 2007;
Wolf et al., 2013; Short, 2014).
Open science practices
We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions (if any), all manipulations
(if any), and all measures in the study. This study is part of a larger project aimed at
investigating the relation between culture and calling. Hypotheses for the project have been
pre-registered on the Open Science Framework and are available at the following link:
https://osf.io/zyb6a/?view_only=bbb7b24bc0254a40909cf45db1014d7c. In this study, we
tested hypotheses 1a to 1g, according to which we expected cross-cultural differences in the
second order loadings of the seven facets of calling. All study materials, data, analysis scripts
and software output are publicly available on the Open Science Framework:
https://osf.io/h4qkn/?view_only=f887994e2a5940099ec65a3f01e2d547. A web supplement
containing additional analyses, results, supplementary tables and figures is available at the
following link: https://osf.io/kwyhv?view_only=09cb23b804264889beceea6f398698cd
10
Figure 1.
Cultural heterogeneity in our sample of nations according to Hofstede’s values.
Notes. Nations are ordered by WEIRDness (Muthukrishna et al. 2020). The vertical axis represent national scores at Hofstede’s values (Hofstede,
2022).
11
Translation
The measure of calling used in this study was originally developed and validated in Italian
(Unified Multi Dimensional Calling Scale, Vianello et al., 2018). An English “master” version
was created collectively from the Italian version by a small and multicultural team of experts
in calling who are fluent in English. A native English speaker supervised and revised the
process. The team evaluated fidelity of meaning, the adequacy of style, grammar, and idioms
and tried to anticipate possible misinterpretations of item meaning during future translations in
different languages. The English master version was then translated into each country’s official
language by one researcher and back-translated into English by another researcher to assess the
validity of localized versions (Brislin, 1970). When discrepancies were detected between the
translated and back-translated versions, the two researchers addressed inconsistencies
according to a consensus procedure. When consensus was not met, the team of experts who
created the English version entered the procedure and facilitated consensus. Since India has
two different official languages, the survey was administered in both English and Hindi to two
different samples.
Nations and Participants
Nations. The study involved 2,490 college students from six countries (India, Turkey,
China, Italy, the United States, and the Netherlands) who answered the survey using six
languages (Hindi, Turkish, Chinese, Italian, English, and Dutch) for a total of seven samples
(India-Hindi, India-English, Turkey, China, Italy, the United States, and the Netherlands).
Countries were selected to maximize cultural differences according to Hofstede’s six cultural
dimensions (Hofstede, 2011; van de Vijver & Tanzer, 2004). Figure 1 reports the national
scores on Hofstede’s values for the six countries involved in this study. Nations are ordered
from the least to the most Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic countries
(WEIRDness computed according to Muthukrishna et al., 2020).
Power distance is high in India and China and low in the United States and The
Netherlands. This cultural dimension expresses the extent to which the less powerful members
within a country expect and accept unequal distribution of power. Hence, less powerful citizens
in India and China feel that they should not have aspirations beyond their rank (Hoftsede,
2010). Individualism, which is high in the United States and The Netherlands and low in India,
China and Turkey, expresses the degree of interdependence a society maintains among its
members. In individualist societies, people are supposed to look after themselves and their
direct family only, rather than their larger “in-group”. People from individualistic countries
tend to value work that provides them independence from the organization (e.g. more freedom
and personal time, higher earning and personal challenge).
Masculinity, which is high in Italy, China and the US and low in The Netherlands, refers
to the extent to which a culture focuses on values of work centrality, competition, achievement,
and success, in contrast to prioritizing caring for others and quality of life. Uncertainty
avoidance refers to the way that a culture deals with and reacts to ambiguous situations. Italy,
and Turkey are high in uncertainty avoidance whereas China, India and the United States are
low.
Long term orientation, which is high in China and low in the United States, regards the
cultural preference for maintaining some links with the past while dealing with the challenges
of the present and future. In China, People are oriented to the present and to future rewards
and, in line with Confucian principles, they value persistence and thrift in gaining results. In
the United States, people value the past (e.g. respecting traditions) and care for the present
rather than the future (e.g. they expect quick results)
The indulgence vs restraint dimension refers to the gratification versus control of basic
human desires related to enjoying life and having fun. Indulgence is high in the United States
and the Netherlands: People perceive greater life control and liberty to indulge in leisurely and
12
fun-related activities. On the opposite side, China, India and Italy, who score low in indulgence,
are tight cultures characterized by a perception that individuals’ actions are restrained by social
norms and a feeling that enjoyment of leisurely activities are somewhat wrong and should be
controlled.
Participants. Participants answered the survey in their country’s official language.
Indian participants were given the option of answering in Hindi or English. Participation was
voluntary, students from India, Turkey, the United States, and The Netherlands were rewarded
with five percentage points, four course credits, 0.25% course credit, or two course credit,
respectively. Chinese participants were recruited through a free messaging and calling app
(Wechat). Italian students were recruited using the bulletin board of a business class or were
directly contacted by four specifically trained master students through social media channels.
U.S. and Dutch students were recruited among students in a voluntary research pool.
Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics for gender, age, family and individual socio-
economic status (SES) divided by the seven samples. The samples were mostly balanced
between male and female, except for a larger percentage of male in India and The Netherlands
and a larger percentage of females in China. Age was similar across countries. SES was
measured comparatively against society, hence a comparison makes sense only between the
two Indian samples: No relevant differences were found (ΔSES family = .13, p = .33, d = .08;
ΔSES individual = .18, p = .17, d = .12). A detailed description of the sample based on ethnicity,
year of enrollment, religiosity, and work experience is provided in Supplementary table 1.
Measures
The survey included measures that are not used in this study. Specifically, we collected
measures of work values, work centrality, collectivism, calling motivation, anxiety, work
volition, perceived employability, satisfaction with life, meaning in life, and career
development. A complete list is available here:
https://osf.io/t64s7/?view_only=cfe93d60de014286a50155eff0f6e6b5
Calling was measured with the Unified Multidimensional Calling Scale (UMCS;
Vianello et al., 2018). The UMCS is a multi-dimensional measure of calling that measures
seven facets: Passion, Sacrifice, Transcendent Summons, Prosocial orientation, Pervasiveness,
Purposeful Work, and Identity. The UMCS possesses good psychometric properties and has
been observed to be invariant at the strict level (e.g. equal error variances) through time and
across study domains (e.g., psychology, engineering, medical sciences; Vianello et al., 2018).
The scale has the widest construct coverage than all other measures of calling (for a
review, see Gerdel et al., 2022): It measures an internal drive for self-fulfillment, enjoyment,
and meaning, which are typical facets of the modern approaches to calling (passion,
pervasiveness, purposeful work, and identity) and external references to the source of a calling,
in line with a neoclassical approach (transcendent summons, prosocial orientation, and
sacrifice; Thompson & Bunderson, 2019). Example items per each dimension of calling are:
passion (i.e. “I am passionate about what I am studying), sacrifice (i.e. “I would keep studying
this subject even in the face of severe obstacles”), transcendent summons (i.e. “I am pursuing
this line of study because I believe I have been called to do so”), prosocial orientation (i.e.
“Meeting society's needs is an important part of my academic and professional career”),
pervasiveness (i.e. “Even when I am not studying, I often think about my courses”),
purposefulness (i.e. “I see my academic and professional career as a path to purpose in life”),
and identity (i.e. “What I study is part of who I am”).
In this study, we used the 28-item version of the UMCS (Gerdel et al., 2022; Vianello
et al., 2022), which is an improved version derived from the UMCS-22 (Vianello et al., 2018)
that shows higher internal consistency and an improved factor structure over the UMCS-22.
Supplemental information and detailed results supporting the psychometric properties of the
13
UMCS-28 and its improvements over the 22-item version are available at the following link:
https://osf.io/7ftx6/?view_only=975506f3d9194c3c99d1fbfc9b4cb5fe.
Table 1.
Sample sociodemographic characteristics by Countries.
Sociodemographic India - India -

Turkey China Italy U.S. Netherlands
variables Hindi English
Total sample size 252 393 486 317 352 354 336
n (%) men 133 253 265 50 153 140

205 (61%)
(60.2%) (68.9%) (54.9%) (26%) (51%) (39.5%)
n (%) women 87 111 216 145 147 213

129 (39%)
(39.4%) (30.2%) (44.7%) (74%) (49%) (60.2%)
Age Min 19 20 18 17 18 18 17
Max 50 42 36 60 58 50 32
M 24.53 24.89 21.89 19.92 22.05 22.44 19
SD 4.51 3.33 1.85 3.27 3.72 3.93 1.45
SES family Min 2 1 1 2 2 1 1
Max 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
M 6.96 7.09 7.32 5.20 6.68 5.95 7.16
SD 1.55 1.54 1.56 1.55 1.58 1.93 1.68
SES Min 1 3 1 2 1 1 1
individual
Max 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
M 7.67 7.49 7.02 6.41 7.02 6.85 6.85
SD 1.55 1.50 1.70 1.54 1.64 1.72 1.50
14
A set of alternative items were developed that might convey a more equivalent meaning
across nations. Specifically, three alternative items have been newly developed to measure
passion (PAS4-A “My studies are exciting”), pervasiveness (PER4-A “I can't help but think
about my studies”), and identity (IDE27-A “What I study is part of my identity”). The Turkish
version of the UMCS included two additional items that represented alternative translations for
items TRS9-T (“I am pursuing my current area of study because I believe I exist for it” instead
of - I have been called to do so) and TRS12-T (“I feel pulled - instead of called - toward my
current area of studies by something greater than me”). Participants responded on a 1 to 5 Likert
scale (1 – Strongly disagree; 2 – Slightly disagree; 3 – Neither agree nor disagree; 4 – Slightly
agree; 5 – Strongly agree). The consistency of all alternative items within the respective scales
were tested before running the measurement invariance analysis. Only item IDE27-A was used
in subsequent analyses replacing item IDE27 (“What I study is a part of my destiny.”) because
it increased the internal consistency of the subscales across samples. Item wording in all
languages is available at the following link:
https://osf.io/t64s7/?view_only=cfe93d60de014286a50155eff0f6e6b5.
Analytical approach
Single Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis. A theoretically driven second order
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was estimated for each sample: All items loaded on their
corresponding first order factors and the seven first order factors loaded on a single second
order factor representing the overarching calling construct. Model fit was evaluated as good
using the following criteria: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥ .90 (Hu & Bentler, 1995), Root
Mean Square of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤ .06 and Standardized Root-Mean-Square of
Residuals (SRMR) ≤ .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Tests of measurement invariance. To understand whether the concept of calling has the
same meaning across cultures, we ran a series of multi-group nested structural equation models
(Chen et al., 2005; Widaman & Reise, 1997) aimed at establishing whether conceptual and
measurement properties of the UMCS are equal across countries. Measurement invariance was
tested at four levels: configural (the same item must load onto the same latent factor), metric
(equal first- and second-order factor loadings across cultures), scalar (equal item intercepts
across cultures) and strict (equal error variances). The models are nested because each model
constrains a set of parameters to be equal across countries and retains previous constraints.
The CFI, the RMSEA, and the SRMR and the thresholds suggested by Chen (2007)
were used to compare models. Metric invariance was rejected with a change ≤ −.010 in CFI,
supplemented by a change ≥ .015 in RMSEA or a change ≥ .030 in SRMR; scalar and strict
invariance models were rejected with a change ≤ −.010 in CFI, supplemented by a change ≥
.015 in RMSEA or a change ≥ .010 in SRMR. Model specifications are described in
Supplementary Table 4.
When equality constraints across nations resulted in a significant increase in misfit, we
used modification indexes to identify the parameters that violated measurement invariance
restrictions and specify a partial invariance model (Byrne et al., 1989). A detailed description
of the approach used to identify non-invariant parameters is reported in the Web Supplement
https://osf.io/kwyhv?view_only=09cb23b804264889beceea6f398698cd.
All analyses were performed using Mplus 7 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2012) and full-
information maximum-likelihood estimation with robust standard errors. All data was used.
Results and discussion

Internal consistencies
15
Internal consistencies for each subscale and for each group (country-language) were
evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega. Internal consistencies are higher
than .72 across all groups. Results are provided in Supplementary Table 2.
Preliminary analyses
We ran single-country CFAs for the UMCS, which includes one second-order factor
(Calling) that is supposed to influence latent scores at seven first-order factors, each of which
accounts for variance in four indicators. To achieve a satisfactory data-model fit in all countries,
we added a correlation between error variances of items SAC6 (“I can give up many things to
continue my studies”) and SAC7 (“I can make many sacrifices to continue my studies”). The
fit of the model in India-Hindi was not satisfactory. Further investigation identified a problem
with the translation of Item TRS11 (“I believe that I have been called to pursue my current area
of study”). Specifically, in the Hindi version of this item (“मैं यह मानता हूँ कि इस किषय िी पढ़ाई
िे किए आं तरिि प्रेिणा कमिी है।”), the term used to translate “being called” (आं तरिि प्रेिणा) has
likely been interpreted as internal inspiration or intrinsic motivation rather than a transcendent
call. Hence, we decided to remove this item from models estimated on the India-Hindi group.
Across all seven groups, model fit was good or acceptable: CFI was equal or higher
than .91, RMSEA lower than .06, SRMR equal or lower than .07. Standardized first order factor
loadings were at least .50 across all groups; Standardized second order factor loadings were
higher than .42. Fit indices of the final models are provided in Supplementary Table 3.
Measurement Invariance Analysis
Table 2 reports the results of measurement invariance tests. The fit of all models and
their comparisons are reported in Supplementary Table 5. The configural invariance model
adequately fits the data, supporting Thurstone’s principle of simple structure (Horn et al.,
1983): All salient (nonzero) and non-salient (zero or near zero) loadings are the same across
countries, and the correlations among the seven first-order factors can be meaningfully
accounted for by a second-order structure with one overarching calling factor. Hence, the
second-order factor structure can be considered to be the same across all groups.
Invariance of first-order and second-order factor loadings was tested using two separate
models. Constraining factor loadings to be equal across groups did not result in a decrease in
model’s fit. Hence, metric invariance can be accepted: The 28 items are equally important
across countries to define the seven components of calling. Even more interestingly, this result
suggests that the seven components of calling are equally important across countries in defining
the second-order construct.
This result suggests that, despite its assumed Western roots, calling is a universal human
experience that is shared across very different cultures. This result importantly extends
previous knowledge on the cross-cultural generalizability of the concept of calling. Indeed,
most previous research assumed rather than tested invariance, and the only three studies that
tested it were either limited in the number of factors tested (Gerdel et al., 2022), provided
evidence of non-invariance of loadings (Autin et al., 2017), or neglected the first-order factor
structure.
In the next step, we added constraints of equality across groups on item intercepts to
test for scalar invariance. These constraints significantly lowered the fit of the model. The most
misfitting constraints were set on the following 10 non-invariant item intercepts: PUR24,
PAS1, PAS2, PUR21, TRS9, TRS11, IDE28, SAC7, PRO13, PER19. These item intercepts
were freed one at a time until the partial scalar invariance model satisfactorily fitted the data.
Item wording and estimates from the final partial scalar model are provided in Supplementary
Figure 1.
.
16
Table 2.
Results of nested model comparisons for testing invariance of factors, loadings, item intercepts, and residuals.
RMSEA
Models 𝜒2 df CFI SRMR Δ𝜒2 Δdf ΔCFI ΔRMSEA ΔSRMR
(90% CI)
Configural invariance 5024.53 2369 .923 .056 (.054, .058) .058
Metric 1st order invariance 5378.28 2494 .916 .057 (.055, .059) .07 351.95 125 -.007 .00 .012
Metric 2nd order invariance 5488.31 2530 .914 .057 (.055, .059) .079 110.03 36 -.002 .00 .009
Scalar invariance 7119.61 2655 .871 .069 (.067, .071) .092 1631.3 125 -.043 .012 .013
Partial Scalar invariance a 5893.38 2596 .904 .06 (.058, .062) .081 405.065 66 -.010 .003 .002
Strict invariance 6944.9 2771 .879 .065 (.063, .067) .103 1051.52 175 -.025 .005 .022
Partial Strict invariance b 6377.16 2711 .894 .062 (.06, .064) .092 483.789 115 -.01 .002 .011
Notes. All chi-square differences were significant at p < .001. Parameters and missing data were estimated with Maximum Likelihood.
Following Chen (2007), criteria for rejection of invariance were: ΔCFI ≤ −.010, ΔRMSEA ≥ .015, ΔSRMR ≥ .030 (for metric invariance) or
ΔSRMR ≥.010 (for scalar and strict invariance).
17
a
Partial scalar invariance was obtained releasing equality constraints on 10 item intercepts in the following order: PUR24, PAS1, PAS2, PUR21,
TRS9, TRS11, IDE28, SAC7, PRO13, PER19.
b
Partial strict invariance was obtained releasing equality constraints on 10 item residuals in the following order: PUR24, IDE25, IDE28, PER17,
PRO13, PRO16, SAC7, TRS9, PAS3, PUR23.
Item wording in all languages is available here: https://osf.io/t64s7/?view_only=cfe93d60de014286a50155eff0f6e6b5
18
Figure 2.
Bias-corrected factor means from the partial scalar invariance model.
Notes. Countries are ordered (left-to-right, low-to-high) according to their WEIRDness (Muthukrishna et al. 2020). Error bars represent 95%
Confidence Intervals around the mean. Corrected biases, reported in Supplementary Table 11, range from null (in the large majority of scores) to
-.46 (Transcendent Summons - The Netherlands). Italy scores were constrained to zero in the partial strong model to achieve identifiability; hence,
in this figure, composite scores of invariant items are plotted for this nation instead of model estimates. Empty columns represent averages in each
facet across countries. Countries’ scores at the overall calling construct were estimated using the following set of constraints: the mean of passion
was constrained to be equal to zero in all countries, the first-order factor means were constrained to be equal across countries, Italian first- and
second-order factor means were constrained to zero.
19
Then, the strict invariance model was tested by applying equality constraints to all
residual variances across all countries. This set of constraints resulted in a significant misfit.
Following the same procedure as before, we identified 10 non-invariant residuals: PUR24,
IDE25, IDE28, PER17, PRO13, PRO16, SAC7, TRS9, PAS3, PUR23. Five items (PUR24,
SAC7, TRS9, PRO13, and IDE28) are non-invariant at both the scalar (item intercept) and
strict levels (residual variances).
The lack of full scalar and strict invariance (i.e., invariance of means and variances)
suggests that the differences in means between the groups might not reflect true differences at
the latent level (Schnettler et al., 2017) if bias due to differential item functioning is not
accounted for. The web supplement
(https://osf.io/kwyhv?view_only=09cb23b804264889beceea6f398698cd) provides detailed
information on items that were interpreted differently across countries. In the remainder of this
section, we will use unbiased factor scores to interpret differences in factor means across
countries. We suggest future researchers to test and eventually control for biases any time they
wish to compare differences in means and correlations across countries using the UMCS-28.
Figure 2 provides bias-corrected factor means, disaggregated by country, for the seven
dimensions of calling and for the overarching construct of calling. A first result that is worth
mentioning regards differences between participants who answered the survey in Hindi or in
English. The former are higher than the latter on purpose, willingness to sacrifice, passion and
identity. The opposite pattern was observed for Transcendent summons: Indian-English
participants reported that they are called toward their studies by something greater or beyond
them to an extent that is much higher than Indian-Hindi participants. Indian-English
participants are more similar to U.S. participants than their compatriots who answered the
survey in Hindi in all dimensions of calling except for prosociality.
No relevant differences regarding age, gender, year of enrollment, religiosity, work
experience or socio-economic status have been identified that would explain differences in
calling across the two samples. Together, these results suggest that the language in which
participants are asked to answer reduces cross-cultural differences. Indeed, we know that
language shapes thought, even around the most basic dimensions of the human experience like
space, time, causality and relationships (Boroditsky, 2001, 2011). There is evidence that
bilinguals change how they see the world depending on which language they are speaking
(Danziger & Ward, 2010). We urge future cross-cultural research investigating differences
between India and other nations or cultures to use participants’ native language.
Similarities and differences across cultures in the levels of calling dimensions. The
passion component is higher in India and China compared to the other countries, yet these two
countries have high levels of calling in general, and the passion component is not higher than
the other components. The level of willingness to sacrifice other parts of life in order to realize
one’s calling is relatively constant and high across all nations, the highest score was reported
by Indian-Hindi participants. The component of prosociality seems to be less variable across
countries than the other facets. The exceptions are high scores for India and low scores for
Dutch participants. This result is in line with the different importance that these two countries
attribute to individualist values, and with the influence of the Hinduist concept of Svadharma,
which refers to the duty that people have to reciprocate what they receive from outside, to
achieve unity and the flourishing of individuals, families, and communities. Transcendent
summons and pervasiveness present the highest variability and the lowest scores across all
countries when compared to the other facets of calling. Italy and The Netherlands scored low
in both facets. China scores high in both facets when compared to the other countries. Indeed,
self-transcendence is strongly advised in the Confucian tradition. The human project of self-
cultivation means transcending oneself to understand the greater levels of relations: family,
society, and world. In this tradition, the calling comes from the sages who developed and
20
transmitted the humanizing Dao (the way to achieve harmony in society), by parents and
ancestors who have given life and love, and by teachers and friends who guide and support. It
is also not surprising to observe that Chinese students report that they always think about their
studies (pervasiveness) more than participants in any other culture. The Confucian project of
self-cultivation requires a strong individual effort, and the (relational) self is the ultimate
achievement. Calling in China is also characterized by a high level of passion and, compared
to other countries, facets’ averages show less variability than other countries. Partially in line
with previous expectations that purpose would have been more relevant in individualistic
societies, (Dik & Duffy, 2009), this component of calling is high in India-Hindi and Italy and
particularly low in the Netherlands. This is a distinctive feature of Dutch callings. Dutch
students see their academic and professional career as a way to achieve purpose in life much
less than all other nations, even if we account for the fact that Dutch students are, on average,
less called than students in all other nations (last set of bars in Figure 2). Their calling is less
pervasive and less transcendent, although results show that Dutch participants are highly
passionate about their calling domain and willing to sacrifice other areas of life to pursue their
calling. Finally, the importance of the identity component is high across all countries and higher
in India-Hindi, China, and Italy, whereas it is lower among U.S. and Dutch students.
The last set of bars in Figure 2 displays the mean of the second-order calling factor. The
data show an association between WEIRDness (Henrich et al, 2010; Muthukrishna et al., 2020)
and calling: Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic nations showed lower levels
of calling. Indian students are those who reported being more called and Dutch students are
those who reported being less called across the six nations included in our sample.
This result is in line with previous research showing that the Protestant Work Ethic is
surprisingly higher in non-Protestant cultures (e.g., Furnham, 1991). Weber’s description of
Protestant Work Ethic beliefs, namely asceticism, hard work, thrift, and frugality among others,
are important tenets of other cultures and religions too, which frequently pre-date Calvin (Niles,
1999). The inverse relation between calling and WEIRD cultural distance that we observed can
be explained by a variety of reasons, but we caution interpretation without further empirical
investigation. There are many psychological outcomes that have been proven to have WEIRD
origins (Schulz et al., 2019), such as individualism, conformism, in-group loyalty and
autonomy. Also, there is evidence that work investment is heavier when survival values are
important, which are heavily linked to wealth and industrialization, as compared to wealthier
societies where self-expression values are important (Snir & Harpaz, 2009). Work investment
may explain why calling is higher in less WEIRD societies. Also, it is possible that limited
social mobility and unequal access to opportunities, which are higher in WEIRD countries,
may limit individual aspirations and expectations toward changes in social status, leading
people to focus their self-actualization needs on their current status. Indeed, the relation
between calling levels and nations’ score at the Power Distance cultural dimension is close to
perfect, and Power Distance defines the extent to which individuals, on average, should not
have desires or aspirations beyond their rank. Should this be the case, access to opportunities
may have, at the country level, the opposite effect of what has been hypothesized in the past at
the individual level (e.g. Duffy et al., 2018): People may experience higher callings toward
their current status when the likelihood of improving their social status is lower.
Conclusions
While research on calling has been burgeoning, little attention has been paid to
understanding the meaning of calling from a cross-cultural perspective. To address this
shortcoming, we drew on an integrative multidimensional conceptualization of calling (UMCS)
to examine whether the conceptualization of calling is generalizable across three Western
(Italy, the U.S., and the Netherlands) and non-Western (India, Turkey, and China) countries.
21
Results suggest that this model of calling is conceived equivalently across cultures, regardless
of their cultural heritage. This observation seems contrary to most expectations based on the
heavy influence that Protestantism had on the present-day concept of calling, but it is in line
with the surprisingly high agreement across religious traditions about the way individuals
should approach their work. Calling may be universal in its structure and meaning, and this
result validates the many studies that investigated calling and its nomological network in
cultures that are different from those in which the construct or its measurement were originally
conceived. Yet, we also observed some degree of non-invariance in the UMCS at the scalar
and strict level, hence it is not recommended to use observed scores for cross-cultural
comparison of means and correlations. The same is true for researchers and practitioners who
wish to compare means and correlations across different ethnicities within the same nation.
Practitioners are also advised to use local norms when measuring calling during vocational
guidance or other individual interventions. The distributional properties of calling across
cultural groups may indeed be different. Standardizing raw scores using a distribution that does
not represent the individual may lead to erroneous interpretations. The comparison of means
in calling derived from the UMCS across samples from India, Turkey, China, Italy, the United
States, and the Netherlands, can be done by partialling out the specific idiosyncrasies between
items and samples. If researchers and practitioners are interested in analyzing cross-cultural
differences in the relations between calling and other constructs (e.g. job performance,
satisfaction, commitment), relations should be estimated using adequate statistical procedures
that control for cross-cultural biases.
This study also contributes to the theoretical debates on calling and its generalizability
(e.g. Dik & Shimizu, 2019; Steger et al., 2010) by analyzing the impact of such macro-
contextual factors as culture and religious traditions on its conceptualization (e.g. Dik &
Domene, 2015; Dik et al., 2012). By drawing on an integrated model of calling, we show that
a conceptualization that combines both neoclassical and modern components is valid in
countries that were deeply influenced by such varying philosophical and religious traditions as
Christianity, Confucianism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Pursuing work as a calling is an
important factor of people’s work experiences, regardless of their religious heritage (Steger et
al., 2010).
Based on the differences that exist across the six studied cultures, both in religious
traditions and cultural values, and in line with previous theoretical predictions (e.g., Dik &
Duffy, 2009), we expected some components of calling to be more important in defining the
construct in some countries than in others. For instance, we expected prosociality to be more
important in collectivistic cultures and purpose to be more important in individualistic cultures.
We found evidence that the opposite is true: It is not the conceptualization of calling that varies
across cultures. Rather, variation is present in the extent (i.e., means) to which people in
different cultures perceive that their calling domain contributes to the different facets that
constitute a calling. Small nuances are present in how people that have been exposed to similar
religious, philosophical and cultural traditions (Italy, The United States, and The Netherlands)
report that their calling domain contributes to the multi-faceted experience of a calling.
Altogether, these results answer a recent call to understand how culture shapes the
meaning and experience of calling (Lysova et al., 2019; Schabram et al., 2022). Surprisingly,
differences across Western countries have been observed for facets of calling such as
Transcendent Summons, Pervasiveness and Purpose, which characterize the neo-classical
approach to calling and should therefore be influenced by the same Christian tradition.
Also, our results urge researchers interested in analyzing calling in India to be aware of
the non-trivial differences in factor means observed among participants who answered in
English or Hindi. The choice between conducting the survey with Indian participants in English
or Hindi should be based on research environment and resources (e.g. type of samples, use of
22
the English language in everyday conversations) and research questions (e.g. cross- or within-
cultural comparisons).
Finally, this study contributes to the understanding of the relation between calling and
nation-level characteristics such as wealth, richness, education and democracy via our finding
that WEIRD countries showed lower levels of calling than non-WEIRD countries.
This nuanced understanding of the relation between calling and culture point at the
importance of taking a more macro-perspective on the study of calling to further enrich its
theoretical development (Lysova et al., 2019; Schabram et al., 2022). Future research could
explore how other contextual factors at the level of countries (e.g. educational regulations,
social security, access to opportunities, social mobility, etc.) impact the extent to which calling
is pursued across countries.
References
Afsar, B., Umrani, W. A., & Khan, A. (2019). The impact of perceived calling on work
outcomes in a nursing context: The role of career commitment and living one’s calling.
Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 24(1), e12154.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jabr.12154
Ahn, J., Kim, H. W., & Lee, J. Y. (2021). A cross-cultural study of calling and life satisfaction
in the United States and South Korea. Journal of Career Development, 48(4), 354-368.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845319882103
Ahmad, S., & Owoyemi, M. Y. (2012). The Concept of Islamic Work Ethic: An Analysis of
Some Salient Points in the Prophetic Tradition. International Journal of Business and
Social Science, 3(20), 116-123.
Ali, A. J., & Al‐Owaihan, A. (2008). Islamic work ethic: a critical review. Cross cultural
management: An international Journal, 5(1), 5-19.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13527600810848791
Autin, K. L., Allan, B. A., Palaniappan, M., & Duffy, R. D. (2017). Career calling in India and
the United States: A cross-cultural measurement study. Journal of Career Assessment,
25(4), 688-702. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072716665860
Beloborodova, P. M., & Leontiev, D. A. (2019). Russian students’ secular conceptions of life
calling: A qualitative analysis. Psychology in Russia: State of the art, 12(2), 2-17.
https://doi.org/10.11621/pir.2019.0201
Berg, J. M., Grant, A. M., & Johnson, V. (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
Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers'
conceptions of time. Cognitive psychology, 43(1), 1-22.
https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0748
Berkson, M., (2016). The Cultivation, Calling and Loss of the Self. Confucian and Daoist
Perspectives on Vocation.In K. A. Cahalan & D. J. Schuurman (Eds.). Calling in
today's world: Voices from eight faith perspectives. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Boroditsky, L. (2011). How language shapes thought. Scientific American, 304(2), 62-65.
https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0211-62
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of cross-cultural
psychology, 1(3), 185-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301
Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor
covariance and mean structures: the issue of partial measurement invariance.
Psychological bulletin, 105(3), 456. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456
Cahalan, K. A., (2016). Called to follow. Vocation in the Catholic Tradition. In K. A.
Cahalan & D. J. Schuurman (Eds.). Calling in today's world: Voices from eight faith
23
perspectives. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Cahalan, K. A., & Schuurman, D. J. (Eds.). (2016). Calling in today's world: Voices from
eight faith perspectives. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Cardador, M. T., Dane, E., & 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
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indices to lack of measurement
invariance. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 14(3), 464-504.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
Chen, F. F., Sousa, K. H., & West, S. G. (2005). Teacher's corner: Testing
measurement invariance of second-order factor models. Structural equation modeling,
12(3), 471-492. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1203_7
Dalla Rosa, A., Vianello, M., & Anselmi, P. (2019). Longitudinal predictors of the
development of a calling: New evidence for the a posteriori hypothesis. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 114, 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.02.007
Danziger, S., & Ward, R. (2010). Language changes implicit associations between ethnic
groups and evaluation in bilinguals. Psychological Science, 21(6), 799.900.
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/05/05/0956797610371344
Dik, B. J., & Domene, J. F. (2015). The psychology of work as a calling in Christian context:
Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 34(4), 291.
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., & 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. (2004, August). Extreme subjective career success: a new integrated view of
having a calling. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2004, No. 1, pp. B1-
B6). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
Dobrow, S. R. (2013). Dynamics of calling: A longitudinal study of musicians. Journal of
organizational behavior, 34(4), 431-452. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1808
Dobrow, S. R., & Tosti‐Kharas, J. (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
Dobrow Riza, S., Weisman, H., Heller, D., & Tosti-Kharas, J. (2019, July). Calling attention
to 20 years of research: A comprehensive meta-analysis of calling. In Academy of
Management Proceedings (Vol. 2019, No. 1, p. 12789). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510:
Academy of Management. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2019.199
Douglass, R. P., Duffy, R. D., & Autin, K. L. (2016). Living a calling, nationality, and life
satisfaction: A moderated, multiple mediator model. Journal of Career Assessment,
24(2), 253-269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072715580324
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.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026129
Duffy, R. D., & Dik, B. J. (2012). Research on work as a calling: Introduction to the special
issue. Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 239-241.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072711434409
Duffy, R. D., & Dik, B. J. (2013). Research on calling: What have we learned and where are
we going?. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 428-436.
24
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.06.006
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.
https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000276
Duffy, R. D., Douglass, R. P., Autin, K. L., England, J., & Dik, B. J. (2016). Does the dark
side of a calling exist? Examining potential negative effects. The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 11(6), 634-646. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1137626
Dumulescu, D., Opre, A., & Ramona, B. (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
Eilberg, A., (2016). Hineini (Here I Am). Jewish Reflections on Calling. In K. A. Cahalan &
D. J. Schuurman (Eds.). Calling in today's world: Voices from eight faith
perspectives. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Elangovan, A. R., Pinder, C. C., & McLean, M. (2010). Callings and organizational behavior.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(3), 428-440.
French, B. F., & Finch, W. H. (2006). Confirmatory factor analytic procedures for the
determination of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(3), 378-
402. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1303_3
Furnham, A. (1991). The Protestant work ethic in Barbados. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 131(1), 29-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1991.9713822
Gerdel, S., Dalla Rosa, A., Vianello, M. (2022). Psychometric Properties and Measurement
Invariance of a Short Form of the Unified Multidimensional Calling Scale (UMCS).
European Journal of Psychological Assessment. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000722
Goštautaitė, B., Bučiūnienė, I., Dalla Rosa, A., Duffy, R., & Kim, H. J. (2020). Healthcare
professionals with calling are less likely to be burned out: the role of social worth and
career stage. Career Development International, 25(6), 649–670.
https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-10-2018-0255
Hagmaier, T., & 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
Han, M. C., & Hwang, P. C. (2021). Who will survive workplace ostracism? Career calling
among hotel employees. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 49, 164-
171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.09.006
Hassan, Mohamad kamal. (1988). Pendidikan dan pembangunan Bersepadu. Kuala Lumpur:
Nurin Enterprise.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature,
466(7302), 29-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/466029a
Hirschi, A. (2012). Callings and work engagement: moderated mediation model of work
meaningfulness, occupational identity, and occupational self-efficacy. Journal of
counseling psychology, 59(3), 479. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028949
Hirschi, A. (2011). Callings in career: A typological approach to essential and optional
components. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(1), 60-73.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online
Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
Hofstede, G. (2022). Hoftsede Insights. https://www.hofstede-insights.com/.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of
the mind (Vol. 2). New York: Mcgraw-hill.
25
Horn, J. L., McArdle, J. J., & Mason, R. (1983). When is invariance not invariant: A practical
scientist's look at the ethereal concept of factor invariance. Southern Psychologist,
1(4), 179–188.
Horváth, Z., & Hollósy-Vadász, G. (2019). The revision of Hungarian public service
motivation (PSM) model. Central European Journal of Labour Law and Personnel
Management, 2(1), 17-28. https://doi.org/10.33382/cejllpm.2019.02.02
Kim, H. J., Praskova, A., & Lee, K.-H. (2017). Cross-Cultural Validation of the Career
Calling Scale for Korean Emerging Adults. Journal of Career Assessment, 25(3),
434–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072716639852
King James Bible. (2017). King James Bible Online. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/
(Original work published 1769)
Lan, G., Okechuku, C., Zhang, H., & Cao, J. (2013). Impact of Job Satisfaction and Personal
Values on the Work Orientation of Chinese Accounting Practitioners. Journal of
Business Ethics, 112(4), 627–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1562-5
Lazar, A., Davidovitch, N., & Coren, G. (2016). Gender Differences in Calling and Work
Spirituality among Israeli Academic Faculty. Journal of International Education
Research, 12(3), 87-98. https://doi.org/10.19030/jier.v12i3.9744
Lee, K.-J. (2016), "Sense of calling and career satisfaction of hotel frontline employees:
Mediation through knowledge sharing with organizational members", International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 346-365.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-01-2014-0026
Lysova, E. I., Dik, B. J., Duffy, R. D., Khapova, S. N., & Arthur, M. B. (2019). Calling and
careers: New insights and future directions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 114, 1-6.
Lysova, E. I., Jansen, P. G. W., Khapova, S. N., Plomp, J., & Tims, M. (2018). Examining
calling as a double edged sword for employability. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
104, 261-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.11.006
Lysova, E. I., & Khapova, S. N. (2019). Enacting creative calling when established career
structures are not in place: The case of the Dutch video game industry. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 114, 31-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.06.004
Meade, A. W., & Bauer, D. J. (2007). Power and Precision in Confirmatory Factor Analytic
Tests of Measurement Invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 14(4), 611–635. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575461
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (1998–2012). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén & Muthén, 6.
Muthukrishna, M., Bell, A. V., Henrich, J., Curtin, C. M., Gedranovich, A., McInerney, J., &
Thue, B. (2020). Beyond Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic
(WEIRD) psychology: Measuring and mapping scales of cultural and psychological
distance. Psychological science, 31(6), 678-701.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620916782
Nath, V. (2017). Calling orientations of junior doctors and medical interns in India: Cultural,
occupational and relational perspectives. International Journal for Educational and
Vocational Guidance, 17(2), 143-163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-016-9321-2
Niles, F. S. (1999). Toward a cross-cultural understanding of work-related beliefs. Human
Relations, 52(7), 855-867. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679905200701
Park, J., Sohn, Y. W., & Ha, Y. J. (2016). South Korean Salespersons’ Calling, Job
Performance, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Role of
Occupational Self-Efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 24(3), 415–428.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072715599354
Pew Research Center (2022). Jewish americans in 2020. https://www.pewforum.org/wp-
26
content/uploads/sites/7/2021/05/PF_05.11.21_Jewish.Americans.pdf
Presbitero, A., & Teng-Calleja, M. (2020). Employee intention to stay in an organization:
Examining the role of calling and perceived supervisor support through the theoretical
lens of work as calling. Journal of Career Assessment, 28(2), 320-336.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072719858389
Schabram, K., Nielsen, J., & Thompson, J. (2022). The Dynamics of Work Orientations: An
Updated Typology and Agenda for the Study of Jobs, Careers, and Callings. Academy
of Management Annals, (ja). https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2021.0153
Schaffer, B. S., & Riordan, C. M. (2003). A review of cross-cultural methodologies for
organizational research: A best-practices approach. Organizational research methods,
6(2), 169-215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428103251542
Schulz, J. F., Bahrami-Rad, D., Beauchamp, J. P., & Henrich, J. (2019). The Church,
intensive kinship, and global psychological variation. Science, 366(6466), eaau5141.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau5141
Shim, Y. R., & Yoo, S. K. (2012). Development and validation of the Korean version of the
calling and vocation questionnaire (CVQ-K). The Korean Journal of Counseling and
Psychotherapy, 24(4), 847-872.
Shin, J. Y., Steger, M. F., & Lee, K. H. (2014). Major incongruence and career development
among American and South Korean college students. Journal of Career Assessment,
22(3), 433-450. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072713498485
Short, S. D. (2014). Power of alternative fit indices for multiple group longitudinal tests of
measurement invariance (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas).
Schuurman, D. J., (2016). To Follow Christ, to Live in the World. Calling in a protestant
Key. In K. A. Cahalan & D. J. Schuurman (Eds.). Calling in today's world: Voices
from eight faith perspectives. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
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
Snir, R., & Harpaz, I. (2009). Cross-cultural differences concerning heavy work investment.
Cross-Cultural Research, 43(4), 309-319. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397109336988
Rambachan, A., (2016). Worship, the Public Good, and Self-Fulfillment. Hindu Perspectives
on Calling. In K. A. Cahalan & D. J. Schuurman (Eds.). Calling in today's world:
Voices from eight faith perspectives. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Riasnugrahani, M., Riantoputra, C. D., Takwin, B., & Panggabean, H. (2019). Discerning
work as a calling: The role of job crafting. The Career Development Quarterly, 67(4),
343-356. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12203
Tian, X., Wu, Y., & Wang, Y. (2018). Career calling of nascent entrepreneurs in china:
structure and measurement. Social Behavior and Personality: an international
journal, 46(4), 695-704. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6656
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. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015140
Ugwu, F. O., & Onyishi, I. E. (2018). Linking perceived organizational frustration to work
engagement: The moderating roles of sense of calling and psychological
meaningfulness. Journal of Career Assessment, 26(2), 220-239.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072717692735
van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (2011). Equivalence and bias: A review of concepts,
models, and data analytic procedures. In D. Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vijver
(Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 17–45). Cambridge
University Press.
27
van de Vijver, F. J., & Leung, K. (2021). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural
research (Vol. 116). Cambridge University Press.
van de Vijver, F., & Tanzer, N. K. (2004). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment:
An overview. European Review of Applied Psychology, 54(2), 119-135.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2003.12.004
Vianello, M., Galliani, E. M., Dalla Rosa, A., & Anselmi, P. (2020). The developmental
trajectories of calling: Predictors and outcomes. Journal of Career Assessment, 28(1),
128-146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072719831276
Vianello, M., Dalla Rosa, A., Anselmi, P., & Galliani, E. M. (2018). Validity and
measurement invariance of the Unified Multidimensional Calling Scale (UMCS): A
three-wave survey study. Plos one, 13(12), e0209348.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209348
Vianello, M., Dalla Rosa, A., & Gerdel, S. (2022). Career Calling and Task Performance:
The Moderating Role of Job Demand. Journal of Career Assessment, 30(2), 238-257.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727211039454
Widaman, K. F., & Reise, S. P. (1997). Exploring the measurement invariance of
psychological instruments: Applications in the substance use domain. In K. J. Bryant,
M. Windle, & S. G. West (Eds.), The science of prevention: Methodological advances
from alcohol and substance abuse research (pp. 281–324). American Psychological
Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10222-009
Willemse, M., & Deacon, E. (2015). Experiencing a sense of calling: The influence of
meaningful work on teachers' work attitudes. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology,
41(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v41i1.1274
Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample Size
Requirements for Structural Equation Models: An Evaluation of Power, Bias, and
Solution Propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913–934.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413495237
Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B. (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
Xie, B., Zhou, W., Huang, J. L., & Xia, M. (2017). Using goal facilitation theory to explain
the relationships between calling and organization-directed citizenship behavior and
job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 100, 78-87.
Yuliawati, L., & Ardyan, E. (2022). The role of life planning in finding purpose and living
out one’s career calling among Indonesian emerging adults. Journal of Career
Development, 49(3), 538–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845320950834
Zhang, C., Dik, B. J., Wei, J., & Zhang, J. (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
Zhang, C., Herrmann, A., Hirschi, A., Wei, J., & Zhang, J. (2015). Assessing calling in Chinese
college students: Development of a measure and its relation to hope. Journal of Career
Assessment, 23(4), 582-596. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072715595804
Zhang, C., Hirschi, A., Dik, B. J., Wei, J., & You, X. (2018). Reciprocal relation between
authenticity and calling among Chinese university students: A latent change score
approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 107, 222-232.
Ziedelis, A. (2019). Perceived calling and work engagement among nurses. Western journal
of nursing research, 41(6), 816-833. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945918767631
28

CCC Manuscript 2022 Distributable

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

CCC Manuscript 2022 Distributable

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CCC Manuscript 2022 Distributable

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: Calling across cultures

Is Calling Conceptualized Equivalently across Cultures?

1. University of Padova, School of Psychology, 2. Northern Illinois University,

Keywords: Career Calling; Calling orientation; Cross-cultural research; Measurement

Is Calling Conceptualized Equivalently Across Cultures?

Sociodemographic India - India -

n (%) men 133 253 265 50 153 140

n (%) women 87 111 216 145 147 213

M 24.53 24.89 21.89 19.92 22.05 22.44 19

SD 4.51 3.33 1.85 3.27 3.72 3.93 1.45

SES family Min 2 1 1 2 2 1 1

M 6.96 7.09 7.32 5.20 6.68 5.95 7.16

SD 1.55 1.54 1.56 1.55 1.58 1.93 1.68

M 7.67 7.49 7.02 6.41 7.02 6.85 6.85

SD 1.55 1.50 1.70 1.54 1.64 1.72 1.50

Results and discussion

Configural invariance 5024.53 2369 .923 .056 (.054, .058) .058

perspectives. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

You might also like