Content uploaded by Claudia Harzer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Claudia Harzer on Nov 18, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
This manuscript was published as:
Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (in press). Your strengths are calling: Preliminary
results of a strengths-based online-intervention to increase calling. Journal of
Happiness Studies. doi:10.1007/s10902-015-9692-y
Running Head: YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
1
Your strengths are calling: Preliminary results of a web-based strengths intervention to
increase calling
Claudia Harzer and Willibald Ruch
University of Zurich, Switzerland
Author note
Claudia Harzer and Willibald Ruch, Department of Psychology, University of Zurich,
Zurich, Switzerland.
Claudia Harzer is now at the Department of Psychology, University of Kassel, Kassel,
Germany.
The preparation of this paper has been facilitated by a research grant from the Swiss
National Science Foundation (SNSF; PBZHP1_147249) awarded to Claudia Harzer. The
authors are thankful to Mareike Gehlhar and Isabelle Hauser for collecting parts of the data.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Claudia Harzer,
Department of Psychology, University of Kassel, Holländische Str. 36-38, 34127 Kassel,
Germany. E-mail: harzer.c@gmail.com
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
2
Abstract
Cross-sectional research indicated that the application of signature strengths at work seemed
to be crucial for perceiving a job as a calling. The present study aimed at testing this assumed
causality in a random-assignment, placebo-controlled web-based intervention study. The
intervention group (n = 83) was instructed to use their four highest character strengths more
often at work for four weeks. Meanwhile the control group (n = 69) reflected about four
situations (independent from the current workplace) where they excelled. For the evaluation
of the effects of the two conditions, participants completed measures on calling and global
life satisfaction before (Pretest), directly after the four-week training period (Posttest 1), and
three (Posttest 2) and six months (Posttest 3) later. Calling significantly increased in the
intervention group but not in the control group from Pretest to Posttest 1, and remained
constant until Posttest 3. Global life satisfaction significantly increased in the intervention
group but not in the control group from Pretest to Posttest 2 and from Posttest 1 to Posttest 3.
That indicated that the changes on global life satisfaction were less steep than the changes in
calling and lagged, but significant long lasting changes were observed likewise. Results
supported the assumption that the application of strengths at work impacts calling and life
satisfaction. Limitations as well as implications for research and practice are discussed.
Keywords: positive intervention; character strengths; signature strengths; calling;
global life satisfaction
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
3
Your strengths are calling: Preliminary results of a web-based strengths intervention to
increase calling
1 Introduction
Within the present paper two research fields that discuss the role person-job fit have
been combined. First, within positive psychological research on character strengths,
researchers stated that people prefer a job congruent to their signature strengths (Park and
Peterson 2007). Second, within the research on calling, researchers highlighted that a job is
more likely perceived as a calling when there is a match between a person and his/her job
(Dik and Duffy 2009; Novak 1996; Weiss et al. 2004). Accordingly, Seligman (2002, p. 169)
hypothesized that adults might transform their jobs into callings by finding ways to
systematically use their signature strengths at work. Seligman (2002) argued that individuals
behave more authentically, realize how their work contributes to the greater good, and are
more positively engaged at work, when they use their signature strengths at work. That is
what “makes work into a calling” (Allan and Duffy 2014, p. 325). Therefore, the present
study is aimed at investigating whether an intentionally increased use of signature strengths at
work leads to an increase in the degree to which individuals consider their work as a calling.
Compared to already existing research on the relation between the use of signature strengths
and calling (Allan and Duffy 2014; Harzer and Ruch 2012), the paper at hand does not
present results from cross-sectional data, but from an intervention study targeting the use of
signature strengths at work in order to increase calling.
1.1 Character Strengths and Signature Strengths
Peterson and Seligman (2004) introduced the Values in Action (VIA) classification of
strengths to describe good character as an important instance of optimal human functioning
(e.g., at the workplace, in family life, in the leisure time). The VIA classification comprises
24 character strengths (e.g., love of learning, prudence, teamwork) that represent the cross-
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
4
culturally valued components of good character as trait-like and measurable positive
individual differences. Character strengths manifest in individual behaviors (e.g., engage in
learning activities), thoughts (e.g., think about consequences of own behavior before acting),
and feelings (e.g., enjoy to work in a team). They are seen as the inner determinant of a
satisfied, happy, and successful life (i.e., the good life), in addition to external factors like
good education, stable social environment, or financial security (cf. Peterson 2006).
Character strengths are valued in their own right and are not engaged in for the tangible
outcomes they may produce, although character strengths do produce desirable outcomes.
The 24 character strengths can be ranked for each individual with respect to how
central they are to the person (for more detailed descriptions of the 24 character strengths
please refer, for example, to Harzer and Ruch 2015; Peterson and Seligman 2004). Most
people develop up to seven top or core strengths among the set of 24. These strengths are
labeled as ‘signature’ strengths. Each person has an individual set of signature strengths that
he/she especially owns and appreciates (Peterson and Seligman 2004). Activities (like one’s
work tasks) that allow the use of the individual signature strengths are expected to be
fulfilling and most valued (Harzer and Ruch 2012, 2013; Park and Peterson 2007; Peterson
and Seligman 2004; Seligman 2002, 2011). Peterson and Seligman (2004) put forward ten
criteria to define and identify signature strengths. A signature strength is, for example,
characterized by the wish to use it, by a drive to behave in accordance to it, and by an
intrinsic motivation to use the strength. Furthermore, after applying a signature strength one
feels invigorated rather than tired.
Several studies highlighted the relations between the application of individual
signature strengths and various positive outcomes. For example, the application of individual
signature strengths is related to positive experiences in life, like life satisfaction, well-being,
and meaning in life as well as to positive experiences at work, like job satisfaction, pleasure
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
5
at work, meaning at work, and job performance (e.g., Harzer and Ruch 2013, 2014; Littman-
Ovadia and Steger 2010; Proctor et al. 2011; Wood et al. 2011). Furthermore, Seligman et al.
(2005) reported data from a healthy convenience sample of adults that were randomly
assigned to one of six conditions (n ranged between 59 and 70 for each of the conditions).
The results indicated that the condition “using signature strengths in a new way” led to a
significant decrease in depressive symptoms from pretest to the first posttest directly after the
one week of training, and this decrease remained even after six months. Furthermore,
happiness significantly increased, but the effect was lagged. More precisely, happiness
increased from the Pretest to the Posttest 2 (one week after the one-week training period), and
remained stable even six months after the training period (Seligman et al. 2005). The positive
effects of the “using signature strengths in a new way”-intervention have been shown in
various studies (e.g., Forest et al. 2012; Gander et al. 2013; Mitchell et al. 2009; Quinlan et
al. 2012).
1.2 Calling
Calling has been defined in different ways in the literature, and different efforts were
made to combine diverse conceptualizations into one definition (e.g., Dik and Duffy 2009;
Dobrow and Tosti-Kharas 2011). Within the scope of the present study we focused on the
definition presented by Dobrow and Tosti-Kharas (2011) because it is unidimensional.
Therefore, it provides a parsimonious way to acquire first insights on the effects of an
intervention targeting the use of signature strengths in order to increase calling. According to
Dobrow and Tosti-Kharas (2011), calling is a “consuming and meaningful passion that
people experience toward a domain” like one’s work (p. 1003). A calling is defined as
consuming, because it is central to the identity of a person who perceives his or her work as
calling. Additionally, it is characterized by a strong engagement in work (Dobrow and Tosti-
Kharas 2011). Furthermore, individuals with a calling perceive their work as being
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
6
meaningful, due to helping other people or the broader society (directly or indirectly; Dik and
Duffy 2009). Individuals with a calling regard their work to be their purpose in life rather
than a means for financial rewards or career advancement (Elangovan et al. 2010;
Wrzesniewski et al. 1997). Calling in the sense presented here does not necessarily entail a
religious connotation of being called by god (cf. Bunderson and Thompson 2009; Steger et
al. 2010; Weiss et al. 2004), but refers to having uncovered the “personal destiny [...]
something that we are good at and something we enjoyed” (Novak 1996, p. 18).
Various studies highlighted the relations between perceiving one’s work as a calling
and positive outcomes. For example, working adults who consider their work as a calling
report higher work satisfaction, enjoyment of work, organizational commitment, and career-
related self-efficacy as well as less frequent turnover and withdrawal intentions (e.g., Duffy
et al. 2011; Hirschi and Herrmann 2013; Peterson et al. 2009; Wrzesniewski et al. 1997). On
a more general, not work-related level, calling is also related to higher levels of life
satisfaction (e.g., Peterson et al. 2009; Wrzesniewski et al. 1997).
1.3 Application of Signature Strengths at Work and Calling
The person-environment (PE) fit theory (e.g., Caplan 1987; Kristof 1996) provides a
framework, which explains why the application of signature strengths at work may enhance
calling. PE fit can be defined as the congruence between the person (e.g., personality,
abilities, interests, and values etc.) and the environment (e.g., work) (cf. Edwards and Shipp
2007; Kristof 1996). The underlying assumption of the PE fit theory is that the closer the
match between the person and the environment, the better the outcomes and that people are
more likely to thrive (e.g., Edwards and Shipp 2007; Holland 1997; Kristof-Brown and
Billsberry 2013). Accordingly, numerous studies showed the relations between the use of
individual capacities and positive outcomes like job satisfaction, engagement, or productivity
at work (e.g., Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001; Lowe 2010; Walton 1975).
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
7
The congruence between the job tasks and the individual signature strengths can be
subsumed within the concept of complementary person-job fit (cf. Kristof 1996), which
represents the degree to which job and individual each supply what the other needs. The
individual’s signature strengths form the individual’s need to be allowed to behave congruent
with those strengths (cf. Peterson and Seligman 2004). The more job tasks allow for the use
of signature strengths, the more the job supplies this need (cf. Harzer and Ruch 2013) and the
closer the match, which should be related to positive work-related outcomes like meaning,
engagement, and calling.
In line with this argumentation, research showed that the application of signature
strengths at work correlates with the degree to which people consider their job as a calling
(e.g., Allan and Duffy 2014; Harzer and Ruch 2012). Furthermore, Harzer and Ruch (2012)
reported that those employees, who applied four or more of their signature strengths at work,
were more likely to experience their job as a calling than employees applying none to three
signature strengths. This result highlights the role of (strengths-related) person-job fit for
calling which has also been highlighted in theoretical contributions about calling (e.g., Dik
and Duffy 2009; Nowak 1996; Weiss et al. 2004) as one of the factors influencing calling.
Nevertheless, the data reported by Harzer and Ruch (2012) were cross-sectional, and did not
allow for an examination of the assumed causal relation between the application of signature
strengths and calling (i.e., the application of strengths at work causes calling).
1.4 Aims of the Present Study
The prime aim of the present study is to investigate this assumed effect of the
application of signature strengths at work on perceiving one’s job as a calling within the
scope of a random-assignment, placebo-controlled web-based intervention study. Drawing on
PE fit theory and previous research we expected that an intervention targeting the application
of signature strengths at work leads to an increase in calling whereas a control condition does
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
8
not. Furthermore, in order to study whether the expected effects of the intervention are short-
term in nature or whether they last medium- to long-term, the participants were followed for
six months after the intervention, with calling being periodically measured.
Additionally, research showed that the application of signature strengths and calling
are related to global life satisfaction (e.g., Allan and Duffy 2014; Peterson et al. 2009;
Seligman et al. 2005, Wrzesniewski et al. 1997). Therefore, global life satisfaction was also
periodically measured in order to monitor the effects of the exercises of the conditions on a
more general level as well.
2 Method
2.1 Participants
The total sample consisted of 152 German-speaking employees (84 males, 68
females) working for diverse employers and in different jobs. Their mean age was 42.07
years (SD = 9.83; ranging from 19 to 70 years). The most prevalent occupational fields (n ≥
5) were n = 35 department managers, n = 23 teachers, n = 9 information technology
technicians, n = 8 project managers, n = 7 HR staff members, and n = 5 research assistants.
Participants were highly educated; n = 96 indicated having a Master’s degree, n = 7 had a
doctoral degree, n = 41 had finished vocational training, and n = 8 had finished secondary
school. Participants at least worked 50 percent of full time hours (M = 90.51%, SD = 16.61; n
= 106 worked full time). Mean job tenure was 11.15 years (SD = 8.56).
2.2 Instruments
The Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS; Peterson et al. 2005) is a
questionnaire consisting of 240 items with a 5-point answer format (from 1 = very much
unlike me to 5 = very much like me) measuring the 24 character strengths of the VIA
classification (10 items for each strength). The responses are averaged across the 10 items per
character strength. A sample item is “I am always coming up with new ways to do things”
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
9
(creativity). The 24 scales of the German version of the VIA-IS (Ruch et al. 2010b) showed
high reliability (median α = .77) and high stability over 9 months (median test-retest
correlation = .73). Self- and peer-rating forms correlated in the expected range (median
correlation = .40). In the present study, the VIA-IS was administered in the Pretest, and the
scales yielded satisfactory internal consistencies (ranging from α =.73 for kindness to α = .92
for spirituality with a median of α = .79 in the total sample).
The Calling Scale (Dobrow and Tosti-Kharas 2011) is a questionnaire consisting of
12 items with a 7-point answer format (from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree)
measuring the extent to which an individual perceives his/her job as a calling. The responses
are averaged across the 12 items to compute the calling score. The internal consistencies were
satisfactory, and ranged between α = .88-.94 across different samples (Dobrow and Tosti-
Kharas 2011). Dobrow and Tosti-Kharas (2011) examined validity (i.e., factorial structure,
convergent and discriminant validity) of the Calling Scale in four different samples, and
reported, for example, confirmatory factor analyses supported unidimensionality.
Furthermore, the Calling Scale was positively correlated with measures assessing related
conceptualizations of calling (e.g., Bunderson and Thompson 2009; Wrzesniewski et al.
1997). In order to use the Calling Scale in German speaking samples, the original items were
translated into German language by five psychologists independently from each other, and
the initial version was compiled by committee approach (Butcher and Pancheri 1976). A
bilingual psychologist back-translated this initial version and, subsequently, an English-
language native speaker compared the back-translated version with the original Calling Scale
to make sure the contents were equal. Slight changes were needed for two of the items. Back-
translation of the revised items and original items were compared again; contents were equal
now. In order to be suitable for various job groups items were slightly modified from, for
example, “The first thing I often think about when I describe myself to others is that I’m a
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
10
manager” was changed into “The first thing I often think about when I describe myself to
others is that I’m a (insert your job title)”. The German adaptation of the Calling Scale was
utilized at all measurement times. It showed a high internal consistency in the total sample of
the present study (αs = .93-.95 across measurement times).
The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al. 1985) is a five-item measure for
the assessment of global life satisfaction using a 7-point answer format (from 1 = strongly
disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Responses are summed up to compute a total score for global
life satisfaction. A sample item is “The conditions of my life are excellent”. The SWLS is
widely used and showed good psychometric properties in various studies (e.g., Diener 1994;
Pavot and Diener 1993). A German version was utilized here that has already been used in
previous research (e.g., Peterson et al. 2007; Ruch et al. 2010a, b, c). It was presented at all
measurement times. It showed high internal consistency in the total sample of the present
study (αs = .89-.92 across measurement times).
2.3 Procedure
2.3.1 Intervention mapping. The present study was embedded in an intervention
mapping process to ensure high standards (cf. Campbell et al. 2000; Goldenhar et al. 2001;
Kok et al. 2004). This intervention mapping process is linear and iterative (Campbell et al.
2000) but also circular (Goldenhar et al. 2001), and included four steps: literature research,
development of methods, implementation (research), and evaluation. Literature research was
aimed at collecting the relevant background information (e.g., published work on signature
strengths, calling, positive interventions, and intervention design) that helped to define and
describe the theoretical and research-related background for the study at hand. Additionally,
literature research helped to identify strategies useful for the development and
implementation of the intervention methods. The development of methods included the
definition of the conditions (i.e., intervention and control group), and the chronology as well
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
11
as the selection of measurements and means of communication (i.e., web-based).
Furthermore, techniques (e.g., if-then-plans) and measurement for behavioral change (e.g.,
frequency of implementation) were selected. Finally, the web-based training platform and
measurements were prepared and pretested (e.g., to test the functionality, and to check for the
time needed to complete the material). Implementation (research) focused on the monitoring
of the ongoing implementation in order to be aware of any implementation-related problems
the participants might have to deal with and to be able to solve those. The evaluation
included the data analyzes to identify the effects of the conditions on the dependent variables
and the feedback of the individual and general results to the participants.
2.3.2 Data collection. Participants were recruited in several ways to obtain a
heterogeneous sample. For example, people were informed about the survey by press
coverage (e.g., newspaper and magazine), by online advertisement (e.g., through a website
offering information about psychological studies), by flyers distributed in the city center, as
well as by snowball system via email and social networks. Participants signed up in an online
system, received basic information regarding the study, and finally expressed (dis)interest of
participation (i.e., informed consent). Basic information included the persons who were
responsible for the development and organization of the “strengths intervention” (i.e., name
of the study as announced to the participants) as well as the chronology of the study, the
measurement times, and the time needed to fill in the questionnaires. Furthermore,
participants were informed about the requirements for participation (i.e., at least working 50
percent of full time hours, commitment to participate in the follow-up surveys). They also
received information about the theoretical background of the strengths interventions and that
they would be randomly assigned to different approaches. Additionally, they were informed
that they would receive personal feedback regarding their individual scores in all the
questionnaires they have filled in across the measurement times at the end of the study, if
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
12
interest was expressed. Participants did not receive any other compensation. Anonymity of
the participants’ was protected, as the email addresses and the individual answers were stored
independently from each other.
The randomized assignments to the conditions as well as the data collection have been
administered online, utilizing a web-based research platform. The individual email addresses
of the participants were used to contact and inform them about upcoming data collections, as
well as to ask them about the implementation of their exercise in their daily life. In order to
assist the participants with the implementation of their exercise during the four-week training
period, weekly emails were sent out to ask them how they were doing and whether there were
any questions. Answers to questions were emailed to every participant in order to keep the
information parallel.
2.3.3 Conditions. The conditions of the present intervention study were based on
activities reported by Seligman et al. (2005). Nevertheless, they were modified to better fit
the current research question. Furthermore, in order to provide more time for the participants
to get used to their exercises, a longer training period of four weeks was chosen instead of the
one-week training period (cf. Seligman et al. 2005). According to the findings of Harzer and
Ruch (2012), the intervention group was instructed to use the four highest character strengths
(i.e., operationalization of their signature strengths) more often and in new ways at work. The
control group was asked to think about situations in four different contexts (i.e., within
family, among friends, at school, at work in the first year after apprenticeship) where they
excelled (i.e., “You at your best”). This exercise was chosen for the control group instead of
the placebo intervention reported by Seligman et al. (2005), because it had the best fit
regarding the cover story (i.e., the study is aimed at comparing different strengths
interventions), and it did not have lasting effects (i.e., can serve as “inert” or placebo
condition within the scope of the present study). Consequently, both the intervention group
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
13
and the control group focused on four different aspects within their exercises (i.e., highest
character strengths or situations where they excelled) for four weeks.
In more detail, the intervention group (n = 83) was instructed to use the individually
four highest character strengths (i.e., operationalization of signature strengths) more often
and in new ways at work in a stepwise procedure at the beginning of the training period.
Participants were invited to the web-based training platform; there they learned about their
four highest character strengths (derived from the rank order of the VIA-IS scales in the
pretest) in step 1. In step 2 they thought about daily activities and tasks at work, and
subsequently, in step 3, collected the ways they currently use their signature strengths in daily
activities and tasks at work. Finally, in step 4, they developed if-then-plans about how to use
the four highest character strengths in new and different ways in daily activities and tasks at
work (cf. Hagger and Luszczynska 2014, for the importance of if-then-plans for effective
behavioral engagement). These plans were summarized on the last page of the web-based
training platform, so that the participants could print them out and take them with them to
work (labeled as “Your individual training plan”). Participants of the intervention group were
instructed to implement their plans about how to use their signature strengths at work more
often in new and different ways during the four-week training period.
The control group (n = 69) was instructed to reflect about real situations in four
different contexts where they excelled (i.e., within family, among friends, at school, at work
in the first year after completing vocational training); also in a stepwise procedure at the
beginning of the training period. Participants of the control group were invited to the web-
based training platform. In the first step, they were asked to think about one situation within
each context and to write down short notes on what happened when and where, and who was
involved. In the second step, they were instructed to write down one story for each context as
detailed and vivid as possible. These stories were summarized on the last page of the web-
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
14
based training platform, and the participants were instructed to print them out and take them
with them (labeled as “Your individual training plan”). During the four weeks of the training
period the control group was instructed to read the four stories every night and to reflect
about the personal strengths displayed in the stories and how the strengths had helped to
excel. This was without any particular focus on participants’ signature strengths, because –
contrary to the intervention group – the control group did not receive any feedback on their
signature strengths.
2.3.4 Design. The present paper reports a random-assignment, placebo-controlled,
web-based intervention study. Figure 1 summarizes the design and procedure.
Insert Figure 1 about here
Figure 1 shows that participants completed the Pretest in month 1; they filled in all
questionnaires and provided information on demographics. Those who completed the pretest
were invited to the web-based training platform in the beginning of the second month. There
they were randomly assigned to one of the conditions (i.e., intervention group or control
group). With the completion of this web-based training platform, participants prepared their
individual, condition-specific training plans and received condition-specific instructions
about what to do during the four-week training period. To be able to investigate both
immediate and prolonged effects of the conditions, participants were followed for six months
with posttests directly after the four-week training period (Posttest 1) as well as three
(Posttest 2) and six months later (Posttest 3). The study follows a 2x4 repeated measures
design; two conditions with four measurement times for the dependent variables calling and
global life satisfaction.
3 Results
3.1 Information on Dropouts and Implementation of Intervention
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
15
In order to estimate the effects of the conditions on calling and global life satisfaction,
all those participants were included in the data analyzes who filled in the pretest, received
treatment (i.e., developed an individual training plan according to the condition they were
randomly assigned to), and filled in at least one of the posttests. A total of 276 volunteers
filled in the pretest. Subsequently, n = 194 of them visited the web-based training platform to
develop their individual training plan (n = 82 dropouts from pretest to development of
training plan). Finally, 42 did not fill in at least one posttest what resulted in 152 analyzable
data sets from the pretest up to the six-month follow-up (Posttest 3).
No differences were found between those who developed their individual training
plan (n = 194), and those who quit after the Pretest (n = 82) with respect to gender ratio –
χ2(1) = 0.01, p = .908, age – F(1, 275) = 0.49, p = .483, education – χ2(5) = 9.77, p = .082, the
Calling Scale – F(1, 275) = 0.63, p = .428, and the SWLS – F(1, 275) = 0.02, p = .902.
Furthermore, there were no differences between those who completed at least one of the three
posttests (n = 152), and those who did not (n = 42), with respect to gender ratio – χ2(1) =
0.37, p = .601, education – χ2(5) = 1.05, p = .903, Calling Scale – F(1, 193) = 2.49, p = .116,
and the SWLS – F(1, 193) = 0.34, p = .561. Those who completed at least one of the three
posttests were slightly older than those who did not, F(1, 193) = 8.34, p = .004 (M = 42.07
years vs. M = 37.21 years). Furthermore, dropout rate did not differ between the two
conditions, χ2(1) = 1.26, p = .262. Given that the age difference was relatively small (i.e., less
than one half of the standard deviation) and none of the other variables showed any
differences, dropouts were considered to be random. Therefore, those participants, who
completed at least one of the three follow-ups, were included in the subsequently presented
data analyses without including any control variables. This led to a data basis for the
subsequently presented data analyzes of N = 152 (nintervention group = 83, ncontrol group = 69) in the
Pretest, N = 149 (nintervention group = 81, ncontrol group = 68) in Posttest 1, N = 115 (nintervention group =
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
16
60, ncontrol group = 55) in Posttest 2, and N = 109 (nintervention group = 53, ncontrol group = 56) in
Posttest 3. A total of 101 participants filled in every posttest (nintervention group = 50, ncontrol group =
51).
To monitor the extent to which the participants implemented their individual training
plans, they were asked how often they were able to do so during the four weeks of the
training period in the Pretest 1 (i.e., new use of a strength at work for intervention group, read
the four stories every night and to reflect about the personal strengths displayed in the story
for control group). On average, the participants were able to implement their individual
training plans M = 10.68 times (SD = 6.53 times; skewness = 0.53, kurtosis = -0.32) within
the four weeks of the training period. The high standard deviation indicated that participants
varied strongly with respect to how often they implemented their individual training plan.
The intervention group and the control group did not differ in the frequency of
implementation, F(1, 144) = 0.35, p = .727.
3.2 Preliminary Analyzes of the Measures of the Dependent Variables
For an examination of the measurements of the dependent variables calling and global
life satisfaction, minima, maxima, means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis were
computed for the Calling Scale and the SWLS. Table 1 presents an overview of the results in
the total sample for the four measurement times.
Insert Table 1 about here
Table 1 shows that the means of the Calling Scale were around the scale midpoint of 4
across the measurement times. Minima and maxima of the Calling Scale highlighted that a
broad range of the possible scores (i.e., 1-7) could be found in the total sample across all
measurement times (i.e., there were individuals in the data set that indicate perceiving their
work as a calling, and individuals who did not do so). Skewness and kurtosis of the Calling
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
17
Scale were consistent with normal distribution. Means of the SWLS were between 25.21 and
26.09, and lied considerably above the scale midpoint of 17.50. Minima and maxima of the
SWLS highlighted that a broad range of the possible scores (i.e., 5-35) could be found in the
total sample across all measurement times. Skewness and kurtosis indicated a slight deviation
from normal distribution. Accordingly, Kolmogorov-Smirnov-Test showed significant
deviations from normal distribution in the SWLS in the Pretest (p = .001), Posttest 1 (p =
.006), and Posttest 3 (p = .014), but not in Posttest 2 (p = .147). However, we decided not
apply any transformations as visual inspection, and values of skewness and kurtosis indicated
only minor deviations from normal distribution (i.e., skewness < |2|, and kurtosis < |4|; cf.
West et al. 1995).
3.3 Effects of Conditions on Calling
To examine the effects of the conditions on calling, a linear mixed model was
computed with measurement time (four levels: Pretest, Posttests 1, 2, and 3) and condition
(two groups: intervention & control group) as the independent variables. Calling (i.e., the
scores in the Calling Scale at the four measurement times) entered the analysis as the
dependent variable. Intercepts were allowed to vary randomly in order to take into account
that participants varied in their individual levels of calling. Main effects of measurement
time, F(3, 378.24) = 2.05, p = .107, and condition, F(1, 154.08) = 1.61, p = .207, were not
significant. More importantly, the results showed a significant interaction of measurement
time and condition, F(3, 378.24) = 3.15, p = .025; this indicated that the conditions had
different effects on calling. Figure 2 illustrates the development of the means in calling over
time for each of the conditions.
Insert Figure 2 about here
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
18
Figure 2 indicates that the intervention group showed an increase in calling whereas
the control group did not change. In the beginning both the intervention and the control group
neither agreed nor disagreed to see their job as a calling (i.e., average scores in the Calling
Scale were around the scale midpoint of 4). After the four weeks of the training period the
intervention group more strongly judged their jobs as callings (i.e., average score in the
Calling Scale was above the scale midpoint of 4, representing a slight endorsement of
statements representing calling).
Subsequently, a linear mixed model was computed for each group independently to
examine whether and when there were significant changes within the intervention group and
the control group. In the intervention group calling significantly changed over time, F(3,
197.63) = 5.53, p = .001. Pairwise comparisons (LSD) of the means of the four measurement
times showed that the intervention group showed a significant increase in calling from Pretest
(M = 4.07) to Posttest 1 (M = 4.32), t(194.19) = -2.95, p = .004. Paired samples Cohen’s d
was .38 for the difference between Pretest and Posttest 1, and indicated a small to medium
sized effect on calling (Cohen 1988). Furthermore, this higher level of calling remained
stable in Posttest 2 (M = 4.34; comparison with Pretest: t[198.37] = -2.89, p = .004, Cohen’s
d = .29) and Posttest 3 (M = 4.43; comparison with Pretest: t[198.91] = -3.60, p < .000,
Cohen’s d = .46). The scores in the Calling Scale did not differ between Posttest 1 and
Posttest 2 (t[198.89] = -0.25, p = .802), Posttest 2 and Posttest 3 (t[196.51] = -0.82, p = .419)
as well as Posttest 1 and 3 (t[198.78] = -1.09, p = .277). In the control group calling did not
significantly change over time, F(3, 180.67) = 0.11, p = .953 (MPretest = 4.10, MPosttest1 = 4.09,
MPosttest2 = 4.05, MPosttest3 = 4.06).
Furthermore, an ANCOVA was computed for each posttest independently to examine
whether there were significant differences in calling between the intervention group and the
control group after the intervention. Calling (i.e., the scores in the Calling Scale at the
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
19
specific measurement time) entered the analysis as the dependent variable, the condition (two
groups: intervention & control group) as the independent variable, and the pretest scores in
the Calling Scale as the control variable. The intervention group and the control group
differed significantly from each other in the Calling Scale in the three posttests, FPosttest 1(1,
148) = 4.89, p = .029, η2 = .033, FPosttest 2(1, 116) = 3.98, p = .048, η2 = .034, FPosttest 3(1, 110)
= 6.78, p = .011, η2 = .060. Again, effect sizes indicated a small to medium sized effects
(Cohen 1988).
3.4 Effects of Conditions on Global Life Satisfaction
To examine the effects of the conditions on global life satisfaction, a linear mixed
model was computed with measurement time (four levels: Pretest, Posttests 1, 2, and 3) and
condition (two groups: intervention & control group) as the independent variables. Global life
satisfaction (i.e., the scores in the SWLS at the four measurement times) entered the analysis
as the dependent variable. Intercepts were allowed to vary randomly in order to take into
account that participants differed in their individual levels of global life satisfaction. Main
effect of intervention condition was not significant, F(1, 152.14) = 0.34, p = .563. Main effect
of measurement time was significant, F(3, 374.74) = 2.81, p = .039. This might be mainly
due to the highly significant interaction effect between measurement time and intervention
condition, F(3, 374.74) = 3.99, p = .008, which indicated that the conditions had different
effects on global life satisfaction. Figure 3 illustrates the development of the means in global
life satisfaction over time for each of the conditions.
Insert Figure 3 about here
Figure 3 indicates that the intervention group showed an increase in global life
satisfaction over time whereas as the control group did not change over time. Subsequently, a
linear mixed model was computed for each group independently to examine whether and
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
20
when there were significant changes within the intervention group and the control group. In
the intervention group, global life satisfaction significantly changed in over time, F(3,
194.59) = 5.86, p < .001. Pairwise comparisons (LSD) of the measurement times showed that
the intervention group showed a significant increase in global life satisfaction from Pretest
(M = 25.02) to Posttest 2 (M = 26.29), t(195.34) = -2.91, p = .004. Additionally, there were
significant changes from Posttest 1 (M = 25.79) to Posttest 3 (M = 26.83), t(195.04) = -2.27,
p = .024. That indicated that the changes on global life satisfaction were less steep than the
changes in calling and lagged, but significant long lasting changes were observed likewise.
Paired samples Cohen’s d was .37 and .41 for the difference between Pretest and Posttest 2,
and between Posttest 1 and Posttest 3, respectively. Both Cohen’s d indicated small to
medium sized effects (Cohen 1988). The control group did not show significant changes in
global life satisfaction over time, F(3, 180.44) = 0.56, p = .645
Furthermore, an ANCOVA was computed for each posttest independently to examine
whether there were significant differences in global life satisfaction between the intervention
group and the control group after the intervention. Global life satisfaction (i.e., the scores in
the SWLS at the specific measurement time) entered the analysis as the dependent variable,
the condition (two groups: intervention & control group) as the independent variable, and the
pretest scores in the SWLS as the control variable. The intervention group and the control
group differed significantly from each other in the Calling Scale in Posttest 3, F(1, 111) =
12.81, p < .001, η2 = .106. The effect size indicated a medium sized effect on global life
satisfaction (Cohen 1988). There were no significant differences between the two conditions
in Posttest 1 and Posttest 2, FPosttest 1(1, 148) = 0.97, p = .327, FPosttest 2(1, 117) = 1.60, p =
.209.
Pavot and Diener (1993) presented a categorization of different levels of satisfaction
measured with the SWLS. The groups derived from the scores in the SWLS include, for
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
21
example, dissatisfied individuals with scores below 20, slightly satisfied individuals with
scores from 21 to 25, and satisfied individuals with scores from 26 to 30. In the beginning the
participants in the two intervention groups could be categorized as slightly satisfied. After the
4 weeks of training the intervention group showed averaged SWLS scores that could be
categorized as satisfied (i.e., one category higher than before) whereas the control group did
not change.
4 Discussion
The present study examined the effects of a strengths-based intervention (i.e.,
targeting the application of signature strengths at work, intervention group) on calling and
global life satisfaction. Results were in line with the expectations that an enhancement of the
application of individuals’ signature strengths at work lead to an increase in the degree of
perceiving one’s job as a calling. This can be interpreted as empirical evidence for theoretical
assumptions by (a) Seligman (2002) who proposed that adults might transform their jobs into
callings by finding ways to systematically use their signature strengths at work; by (b) Dik
and Duffy (2009), Novak (1996), and Weiss et al. (2004) who stated that a calling is more
likely to occur when there is a match between a person and his/her job (i.e., person-
environment fit); and by (c) PE fit theory that the use of individual capacities at work leads to
positive outcomes (e.g., Edwards and Shipp 2007; Holland 1997; Kristof-Brown and
Billsberry 2013).
Furthermore, this causal relation could be interpreted on a more intra-personal,
experience-related level and with respect to the defining criteria for signature strengths (cf.
Peterson and Seligman 2004). Accordingly, the application of signature strengths at work
may cause individuals to feel more authentic, invigorated, and fitting in their work
environment with respect to the requirements. Individuals who use their signature strengths at
work might experience that what they are best at is useful, needed, and asked for at work.
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
22
Taken all together, that in turn might enable more passionate, meaning-providing
involvement in one’s job what in turn makes the work a more central part in life; and all that
is what defines a calling (cf. Dobrow and Tosti-Kharas 2011). These intra-personal processes
could be addressed in future studies to unravel these experiences and mechanisms in more
detail to further develop a theoretical framework on why and how the application of signature
strengths enhances calling.
Furthermore, the strengths-based intervention led to an increase in global life
satisfaction, although this was not the prime aim of the intervention. The effects on global life
satisfaction can be interpreted as evidence for the assumptions that the use of signature
strengths is fulfilling (cf. Peterson and Seligman 2004). In line with the results reported in
Seligman et al. (2005), we found a lagged effect on satisfaction. Positive effects within a
specific life domain (here: work) may need to solidify first, in order to impact the overall
evaluation of one’s life (i.e., global life satisfaction). However, these mechanisms need to be
addressed in future studies as they go beyond the scope of the present paper.
Within the character strengths research there are two approaches to increase
individuals’ life satisfaction: (1) fostering the character strengths most strongly related with
life satisfaction (e.g., gratitude, zest, and curiosity; cf. Proyer et al. 2013), and (2) enhancing
the use of signature strengths as demonstrated in the present study or by Seligman et al.
(2005) and Gander et al. (2013). The first approach focuses on the enhancement of character
strengths that individuals might not have developed in a pronounced way. The engagement in
thoughts, actions, and feelings related to those character strengths in turn should lead to an
increase in life satisfaction (Proyer et al. 2013). The second approach focuses on what is
already good in people (i.e., what is already existing in terms of signature strengths) in order
to further develop and foster it by enhancing the use of signature strengths. It might be of
interest to further study the differences between these approaches, for example, in terms of
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
23
acceptance by participants, long-term effects, and whether a combination of both approaches
is even more potent than the single ones.
4.1 Limitations and Future Research
Although the four-week training period utilized in the present study is longer than the
training periods of programs reported earlier (e.g., Seligman et al. 2005), four weeks still
seemed to be too short. The workplace is a very formal and strong environment (cf. Ten
Berge and De Raad 1999), and as a consequence, the required change in the individuals’
behavior at work is a very difficult, demanding task that might need more time. Furthermore,
the frequency of implementation with an average of about 11 times during the four-week
training period (i.e., less than three times a week) was rather low and approximately one third
of the participants did not implement their plan more than five times in total. Considering
this, the small to medium effect of the strengths-based intervention on calling and global life
satisfaction is even more considerable. Given the fact that there are a total of 20 workdays
with eight hours of working time each day during a four-week period (for a fulltime job with
5 workdays per week), there is a lot of potential for improvement. With an enhancement of
intensity (i.e., longer training period, more frequent implementation) of the intervention we
expect an even stronger impact on outcomes like calling and life satisfaction.
We suggest a training period of at least 3 months (cf. Sin and Lyubomirsky 2009) and
periodic meetings (e.g., in form of workshops or individual coaching; cf. Hagger and
Luszczynska 2014) in order to improve the effects of the strengths-based intervention. Those
adjustments in the design of the intervention will provide more time for a better routine in
changing behavior. The web-based training platform was very convenient for the participants
and easy to use with any computer with Internet access (e.g., it allows for automatically
generated individual feedback and summarizes the entries of the participants regarding their
individual training plans for printouts). However, additional personal meetings might be
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
24
better for keeping participants on track because they could lower the threshold to ask
questions regarding the implementation of the individual training plan during the training
period.
Furthermore, sample size was rather restricted with 53 to 83 participants in the
intervention group across measurement time. This did not allow for more fine-grained
analyzes to identify the specifics of subgroups for which the strengths-based intervention was
most effective in increasing calling and/or global life satisfaction, for example, with respect
to the applicability of their signature strengths at work prior to the intervention and frequency
of implementation. Future research may deepen the understanding of the best circumstances
and conditions (i.e., high commitment of participants and large enduring effects) for the
strengths intervention by studying larger samples, which allow for the analysis of subgroups.
This may help to examine for whom the strengths-based intervention presented here is best
fitting and under which circumstances (cf. Lyubomirsky et al. 2005b). For example, those
who had a relatively low frequency of applicability may have the most space to develop
hereof, and the impact of the intervention should be stronger for them. Furthermore, those
participants who used their strengths not at all or rarely during the training period (i.e., low
frequency of implementation) might not report any changes in calling or global life
satisfaction compared to those who used their character strengths more often due to the
higher frequency of implementation of their individual training plan. Additionally,
conducting an intervention to increase a person’s calling by using signature strengths at work
seems only useful, when it is ensured that the person’s signature strengths fit to the
requirements of a job. This was not an issue in the data as there was no participant who was
not able to develop if-then-plans for at least three of his/her four signature strengths. This
might be interpreted as indicator that the person’s signature strengths fit to the requirements
of his/her job. As job tenure was around 11 years on average in the sample, it appears to be
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
25
very likely, that our sample consists of individuals with a certain person-job fit; else they
would have very likely quit the job (cf. Kristof-Brown et al. 2005). It seems like that a bad fit
is a relatively seldom exception in samples with job tenures of several years. Therefore, we
did not expect that to jeopardize the effects of the intervention. In line with this, the effects
within the intervention group appeared despite this unwanted variance in the data. However,
future studies are needed to get a deeper understanding of the effects of whether and how
many of the signature strengths (1) do actually fit, (2) do not necessarily fit but can be
accommodated, and (3) are actually incompatible to the requirements of the job of a person.
For example, it is not clear whether it is calling that increases when a person applies a
signature strength that actually does not fit to the requirements (but the person does apply it,
and finds it gratifying). Moreover, future studies might specifically recruit samples with low
or medium education (e.g., blue-collar worker) as the data presented here stemmed from a
highly educated sample. Therefore, generalizability of results to less educated groups of the
work force can be questioned and needs to be addressed in future research.
Additionally, data collection was based on self-reports only. However, as the
experience of calling and global life satisfaction were considered to be in large parts intra-
individual experiences, the self-ratings were considered the most valid judgments.
Nevertheless, future studies could utilize multiple data sources to eliminate the effects
associated with common method variance (cf. Doty and Glick 1998).
Another limitation of the present study refers to the conceptualization and
measurement of calling utilized here. Drawing on the definition presented by Dobrow and
Tosti-Kharas (2011) we utilized a unidimensional scale. This could be criticized however,
because such a unidimensional approach prevents studying complexities with respect to the
expression or experience of a sense of calling (cf. Dik et al. 2012; Elangovan et al. 2010). We
consider the unidimensional approach utilized here as a starting point in order to get first
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
26
insights in the effects of an intervention targeting the use of signature strengths at work to
increase calling. Future research is needed to further disentangle the relation between the
application of signature strengths or character strengths at work and different aspects of
calling like, for example, the search for calling, the presence of calling, and living a calling
(e.g., Allan and Duffy 2014; Dik et al. 2012; Duffy et al. 2013). Calling as utilized here
comprised both the presence of and living a calling. However, it needs to be further examined
whether a strengths intervention as presented here might increase the presence of calling or
living a calling or both.
In order to study the assumed causal effect of the application of signature strengths at
work on calling and global life satisfaction, a random-assignment, placebo-controlled web-
based intervention study design was utilized. An integral part of the procedure was the
manipulation of the independent variable (i.e., application of signature strengths at work) in
the intervention group (but not in the control group) and the observation of the changes in the
dependent variables. The results showed that there were significant changes in the
intervention group but not in the control group. Although these results can be interpreted as
indicating a causal relation (cf. Field 2009), the design does not allow for further
disentangling more complex causal relations (e.g., reciprocal effects) between the application
of signature strengths at work and the outcomes that may exist. In order to do so, future
research might utilize a cross-lagged design for which the application of signature strengths
and outcomes like calling and global life satisfaction are measured several times across a
larger time span (cf. Finkel 2004).
Taking these limitations together, the pilot nature of the present study is highlighted.
However, the preliminary results presented here appear promising, and may inform future
studies examining the application of character strengths and calling.
4.2 Practical Implications
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
27
The present paper highlights the usefulness of positive interventions in the work
context (cf. Meyers et al. 2013). Work is a place where capabilities (here: character strengths)
can be fostered (e.g., by job crafting1) to enhance the positive perception of work (here:
calling) and overall life (here: global life satisfaction). By focusing on individuals’ signature
strengths instead of specific character strengths like teamwork or leadership, the present
study shows one way to acknowledge diversity (here: diversity regarding personality) among
the workforce, for example, within the scope of personnel development.
Fostering the application of signature strengths in employees to increase calling and
life satisfaction may lead to a win-win-situation for both employees and employers.
Enhancing calling may result in other positive outcomes as well, for example, less frequent
turnover (i.e., more years in current position), less frequent absence days, and higher income
(Wrzesniewski et al. 1997). Furthermore, life satisfaction (or happiness more broadly
speaking) is, for example, related to less counterproductive work behavior, less job
withdrawal, higher job performance, better health, and perceived friendliness (Lyubomirsky
et al. 2005a). Moreover, the application of signature strengths at work is related to job
performance as well (Harzer and Ruch 2014).
1 Intervention group was instructed to use the individually four highest character strengths more often and in
new ways at work. As most jobs require the interaction with others, this intervention is very likely to alter the
nature of interactions at work; this is one of the job crafting practices presented by Wrzesniewski and Dutton
(2001). However, job crafting practices may also include changes in the design of the job (e.g., alter type and
number of job tasks; Wrzesniewski and Dutton 2001), and that was not part of the strengths intervention.
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
28
References
Allan, B. A., & Duffy, R. D. (2014). Examining moderators of signature strengths use and
well-being: Calling and signature strengths level. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15,
323-337. doi:10.1007/s10902-013-9424-0
Bunderson, J. S., & Thompson, J. A. (2009). The call of the wild: Zookeepers, callings, and
the double-edged sword of deeply meaningful work. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 54, 32-57. doi:10.2189/asqu.2009.54.1.32
Butcher, J. M., & Pancheri, P. (1976). A handbook of cross-national MMPI research.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Campbell, M., Fitzpatrick, R., Haines, A., Kinmonth, A. L., Sandercock, P., Spiegelhalter, P.,
& Tyrer, P. (2000). Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to
improve health. British Medical Journal, 321, 694-696.
doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7262.694
Caplan, R. D. (1987). Person-environment fit theory and organizations: Commensurate
dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31,
248-267. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(87)90042-X
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Diener, E. (1994). Assessing subjective well-being. Progress and opportunities. Social
Indicators Research, 31, 103-157. doi:10.1007/BF01207052
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life
Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.
doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
29
Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2009). Calling and vocation at work: Definitions and prospects for
research and practice. The Counseling Psychologist, 37, 424-450.
doi:10.1177/0011000008316430
Dik, B. J., Eldridge, B. M., Steger, M. F., & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Development and
Validation of the Calling and Vocation Questionnaire (CVQ) and Brief Calling Scale
(BCS). Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 242-263. doi:10.1177/1069072711434410
Dobrow, S. R., & Tosti-Kharas, J. (2011). Calling: The development of a scale measure.
Personnel Psychology, 64, 1001-1049. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01234.x
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998). Common method bias: Does common methods variance
really bias results? Organizational Research Methods, 1, 374-406.
doi:10.1177/109442819814002
Duffy, R. D., Allan, B. A., Autin, K. L., & Bott, E. M. (2013). Calling and life satisfaction:
It's not about having it, it's about living it. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 42-
52. doi: 10.1037/a0030635
Duffy, R. D., Dik, B. J., & Steger, M. F. (2011). Calling and work-related outcomes: Career
commitment as a mediator. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 210-218.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.09.013
Edwards, J. R., & Shipp, A. J. (2007). The relationship between person-environment fit and
outcomes: An integrative theoretical framework. In C. Ostroff, & T. A. Judge (Eds.),
Perspectives on organizational fit (pp. 209-258). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Elangovan, A. R., Pinder, C. C., & McLean, M. (2010). Callings and organizational behavior.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 428-440. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2009.10.009
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications Ltd.
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
30
Finkel, S. (2004). Cross-lagged. In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. F. Liao (Eds.), The
SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods (pp. 229-230). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. doi:10.4135/9781412950589.n202
Forest, J., Mageau, G. V. A., Crevier-Braud, L., Bergeron, L., Dubreuil, P., & Lavigne, G. V.
L. (2012). Harmonious passion as an explanation of the relation between signature
strengths’ use and well-being at work: Test of an intervention program. Human
Relations, 65, 1233-1252. doi:10.1177/0018726711433134
Gander, F., Proyer, R. T., Ruch, W., & Wyss, T. (2013). Strength-based positive
interventions: Further evidence on their potential for enhancing well-being and
alleviating depression. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 1241-1259.
doi:10.1007%2Fs10902-012-9380-0
Goldenhar, L. M., LaMontagne, A. D., Katz, T., Heaney, C., & Landsbergis, P. (2001). The
intervention research process in occupational safety and health: An overview from the
National Occupational Research Agenda Intervention Effectiveness Research Team.
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 43, 616-622.
Hagger, M. S., & Luszczynska, A. (2014). Implementation intention and action planning
interventions in health contexts: State of the research and proposals for the way
forward. Applied Psychology: Health and Well
‐
Being, 6, 1-47.
doi:10.1111/aphw.12017
Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2012). When the job is a calling: The role of applying one’s
signature strengths at work. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7, 362-371.
doi:10.1080/17439760.2012.702784
Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2013). The application of signature character strengths and positive
experiences at work. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 965-983. doi:10.1007/s10902-
012-9364-0
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
31
Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2014). The role of character strengths for task performance, job
dedication, interpersonal facilitation, and organizational support. Human
Performance, 27, 183-205. doi:10.1080/08959285.2014.913592
Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2015). The relationships of character strengths with coping, work-
related stress, and job satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 6: 165.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00165
Hirschi, A., & Herrmann, A. (2013). Calling and career preparation: Investigating
developmental patterns and temporal precedence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83,
51-60. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2013.02.008
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of work personalities and work
environments. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources Inc.
Kok, G., Schaalma, H., Ruiter, R. A. C., van Empelen, P., & Brug, J. (2004). Intervention
mapping: Protocol for applying health psychology theory to prevention programmes.
Journal of Health Psychology, 9, 85-98. doi:10.1177/1359105304038379
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An investigative review of its
conceptualizations, measurement, and implication. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x
Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Billsberry, J. (2013). Fit for the future. In A. L. Kristof-Brown, & J.
Billsberry (Eds.), Organizational fit: Key issues and new directions (pp. 1-18).
Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. doi:10.1002/9781118320853.ch1
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmermann, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of
individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-
group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281-342.
doi:0.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
32
Lauver, K., and Kristof-Brown, A. (2001) Distinguishing between employees' perceptions of
person-job fit and person-organization fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 454-
470. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1807
Littman-Ovadia, H., & Steger, M. F. (2010). Character strengths and well-being among
volunteers and employees: Toward an integrative model. The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 5, 419-430. doi:10.1080/17439760.2010.516765
Lowe, G. (2010). Creating healthy organizations. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto
Press.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005a). The benefits of frequent positive affect:
Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803-855.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803
Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005b). Pursuing happiness: The
architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9, 111-131.
doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111
Meyers, M. C., van Woerkom, M., Bakker, A. (2013). Added value of the positive: A
literature review of positive psychology interventions in organizations. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22, 618-632.
doi:10.1080/1359432X.2012.694689
Mitchell, J., Stanimirovic, R., Klein, B., Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2009). A randomised
controlled trial of a self-guided internet intervention promoting well-being.
Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 749-760. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.02.003
Novak, M. (1996). Business as a calling: Work and the examined life. New York, NY: The
Free Press.
Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2007). Methodological issues in positive psychology and the
assessment of character strengths. In A. D. Ong, & M. H. M. van Dulmen (Eds.),
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
33
Handbook of methods in positive psychology (pp. 292-305). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Psychological
Assessment, 5, 164-172. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.5.2.164
Peterson, C. (2006). The Values in Action (VIA) classification of strengths. In M.
Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi, A life worth living: Contributions to
positive psychology (pp. 29-48). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Peterson, C., Park, N., Hall, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2009). Zest and work. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 30, 161-172. doi:10.1002/job.584
Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Assessment of character strengths. In G.
P. Koocher, J. C. Norcross, & S. S. Hill (Eds.), Psychologists’ desk reference (2nd
ed., pp. 93-98). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Peterson, C., Ruch, W., Beermann, U., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2007). Strengths of
character, orientation to happiness, and life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 2, 149-156. doi:10.1080/17439760701228938
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and
classification. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Proctor, C., Maltby, J., & Linley, P. A. (2011). Strengths use as a predictor of wellbeing and
health-related quality of life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12, 153-169.
doi:10.1007/s10902-009-9181-2
Proyer, R. T., Ruch, W., & Buschor, C. (2013). Testing strengths-based interventions: A
preliminary study on the effectiveness of a program targeting curiosity, gratitude,
hope, humor, and zest for enhancing life satisfaction. Journal of Happiness Studies,
14, 275-292. doi:10.1007/s10902-012-9331-9
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
34
Quinlan, D., Swain, N., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2012). Character strengths interventions:
Building on what we know for improved outcomes. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13,
1145-1163. doi:10.1007/s10902-011-9311-5
Ruch, W., Harzer, C., Proyer, R. T., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2010a). Ways to happiness in
German-speaking countries: The adaptation of the German version of the orientations
to happiness questionnaire in paper-pencil and internet samples. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 26, 224-231. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000030
Ruch, W., Proyer, R. T., Harzer, C., Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2010b).
Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS): Adaptation and validation of the
German version and the development of a peer-rating form. Journal of Individual
Differences, 31, 138-149. doi:10.1027/1614-0001/a000022
Ruch, W., Proyer, R. T., & Weber, M. (2010c). Humor as character strength among the
elderly: Empirical findings on age-related changes and its contribution to satisfaction
with life. Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 43, 13-18. doi:10.1007/s00391-
009-0090-0
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize
your potential for lasting fulfillment. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-
being. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology
progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410-421.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.410
Sin, N., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive
symptoms with positive psychology interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65, 467-487. doi:10.1002/jclp.20593
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
35
Steger, M., F., Pickering, N. K., Shin, J. Y., & Dik, B. J. (2010). Calling in work: Secular or
sacred? Journal of Career Assessment, 18, 82-96. doi:10.1177/1069072709350905
Ten Berge, M. A., & De Raad, B. (1999). Taxonomies of situations from a trait psychological
perspective. A review. European Journal of Personality, 13, 337-360.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199909/10)13:5<337::AID-PER363>3.0.CO;2-F
Walton, R. E. (1975). Criteria for quality of working life. In L. E. Davis, & A. B. Cherns
(Eds.), The quality of working life (Vol. 1, pp. 91-104). New York, NY: The Free
Press.
Weiss, J. W., Skelley, M. F., Haughey, J. C., & Hall, D. T. (2004). Calling, new careers and
spirituality: A reflective perspective for organizational leaders and professionals. In
M. L. Pava & P. Primeaux (Eds.), Spiritual intelligence at work: Meaning, metaphor,
and morals (pp. 175-201). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal
variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (ed.), Structural equation modeling:
Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 56-75). Newbery Park, CA: Sage.
Wood, A. M., Linley, A. P., Maltby, J., Kashdan, T. B., & Hurling, R. (2011). Using personal
and psychological strengths leads to increases in well-being over time: A longitudinal
study and the development of the strengths use questionnaire. Personality and
Individual Differences, 50, 15-19. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.08.004
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active
crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26, 179-201.
doi:10.5465/AMR.2001.4378011
Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C. R., Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Jobs, careers, and
callings: People’s relations to their work. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 21-
33. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1997.2162
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
36
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for the Calling Scale and the SWLS for the Four Measurement Times
Scales
M
SD
Min
Max
Skewness
Kurtosis
Calling Scale
Pretest
4.08
1.12
1.00
6.67
-0.28
-0.01
Posttest 1
4.21
1.15
1.00
6.58
-0.57
0.08
Posttest 2
4.14
1.20
1.17
7.00
-0.29
-0.38
Posttest 3
4.20
1.24
1.00
6.33
-0.33
-0.44
SWLS
Pretest
25.21
6.09
5.00
34.00
-1.23
1.38
Posttest 1
25.63
5.94
5.00
35.00
-1.25
1.64
Posttest 2
26.09
5.68
7.00
35.00
-1.09
1.50
Posttest 3
26.05
5.39
8.00
35.00
-1.02
1.16
Note. NPretest = 152, NPosttest 1 = 149, NPosttest 2 = 115, and NPosttest 3 = 109.
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
37
Figure 1. Overview of the design and procedure of the present intervention study presenting
the chronology, measurement times, and measures administered.
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
38
Figure 2. Development of means in calling over time for each of the conditions. Scores above
the scale midpoint of 4 represent an endorsement of statements representing calling, whereas
scores below the scale midpoint of 4 represent a disagreement with statements representing
calling.
YOUR STRENGTHS ARE CALLING
39
Figure 3. Development of means in global life satisfaction over time for each of the
conditions.
A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Journal of Happiness Studies
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
