Shimizu, Adelyn B., authorDik, Bryan J., advisorConner, Bradley T., committee memberBecker, Anthony, committee member2017-09-142019-09-122017https://hdl.handle.net/10217/183983The topic of calling, the work orientation associated most deeply with a sense of meaningful work (e.g., Bunderson & Thompson, 2009), has received increased interest and research within the last several decades. However, the field is plagued by confusion regarding what the calling concept entails and for whom. This present study addresses these two concerns within a sample (N = 588) of U.S. undergraduate students. First, a two-step cluster analysis method was employed to build upon the only previous typological study of calling (i.e., Hirschi, 2011) with the purpose of better understanding the patterns of vocational identity characteristics for those with a sense of calling. A two-cluster solution was determined which differed significantly on sense of calling; other key differences between the two clusters included the importance placed on work versus religion and the emphasis on self-enhancement and prosocial work values. These two clusters are similar to two of Hirschi's (2011) three calling clusters and the similarities and differences between the two studies findings are discussed. Second, the taxometric method was also used to discern if this lack of consensus and the diverse array of scholarly definitions of calling is reflective of two distinct types of calling within its latent structure. An indicator set was created to fully represent all understandings of the concept of calling using a combination of one dimension representing a "Modern" understanding of calling (i.e., the Calling Scale - Dobrow and Tosti-Kharas, 2011) and three dimensions representing Neo-Classical understandings of calling (i.e., the Calling and Vocation Questionnaire - Dik et al., 2012). This indicator set was then analyzed using three statistically non-redundant taxometric procedures (i.e., MAXEIG, MAMBAC, and L-Mode). These taxometric results strongly support the latent structure of calling as dimensional (i.e., not categorical) and therefore did not support the hypothesis. These findings have important practical implications for causality, labeling, and measurement. While subsequent research is needed, the results of the present study point to the possibility that differences in how individuals define calling are reflective of personal characteristics influencing which aspects of calling are emphasized.born digitalmasters thesesengCopyright and other restrictions may apply. User is responsible for compliance with all applicable laws. For information about copyright law, please see https://libguides.colostate.edu/copyright.Text