Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37622823›Full record

ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Examining the Pro-Self and Prosocial Components of a Calling Outlook: A Critical Review.

Rona Hart, Dan Hart

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Rona HartSchool of Psychology, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9RH, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8290-3120
Dan HartBirmingham Business School, University of Birmingham, 116 Edgbaston Park Road, Birmingham B15 2TY, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Work on callings has burgeoned in the past 20 years, yet recent reviews exposed a lack of conceptual clarity and disagreements around its definition, components and measures. One lingering point of contention revolves around the element of prosociality: is a calling orientation primarily motivated by self-interest, prosocially orientated, or a mix of both? This conceptual paper reviews and examines the pro-self and prosocial component of a calling outlook, by examining and comparing the ways in which they feature in different calling subtypes: classic, neoclassic and modern callings. Our analysis suggests that these subtypes vary in where they are located on a pro-self-prosocial continuum: classic callings are located on the prosocial side of the axis, modern callings are located on pro-self side of the axis, and neoclassic callings can be situated in the middle of the continuum, integrating self-orientated and other-orientated motivations. Our analysis further suggests that these calling subtypes draw on divergent value systems: classic callings are propelled by self-transcendent values, modern callings are driven by self-actualization motivations, and neoclassic callings integrate both value systems. We therefore argue that the subjective experiences of pursuing a calling within each subtype pathway differ, although they may culminate in similar outcomes. The paper offers a novel framework for analyzing people's calling that draws on their values.

Indexed as

callingmeaning of workprosocial behaviorsvalues

Identifiers

PMID37622823
PMCPMC10451554

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.