Predicting Religious Undergraduates’ Career Development: The Salient Roles of Religious Calling, Life Satisfaction, and Quest Religiosity

Abstract

Americans, over several decades, have consistently identified themselves as being religious and/or spiritual. Even though religious devotion has been recognized as a relevant diversity facet, therapeutic applications have been problematic. In the career development literature, numerous studies examined the influence of religion/spirituality (R/S) and generally categorized them in three ways. These include R/S as religious calling, as an integral feature of career interests and values, and as a supportive role. Yet, notable gaps exist among the articles. Researchers tended to operationalize R/S in a unidimensional manner, as a stand-alone construct instead of comprising multiple features. Investigations of religious calling in vocational matters were not recent. Further, few authors considered the influence of quest religious orientation on career development. In the present study, the relationships between seven career development and thirteen R/S variables using a sample of religious undergraduates (n = 290) enrolled in a career exploration course at a Christian university in the Midwest region of the United States were investigated. Findings from hierarchical regression analyses of vocational identity, career commitment, and career indecision checking for gender effects revealed three consistent salient predictors – religious calling, life-satisfaction, and quest religiosity. Implications of the results and possible therapeutic applications for career counselors are proposed.

1. Introduction

Surveys about the religious landscape in the United States underscore how Americans self-report a high level of importance for religion/spirituality (R/S). For instance, 81% of adults believe in God, 66% designate religion as very or somewhat important, and 65% self-identify as Christian (Jones 2022; Pew 2019; Smith 2021). Such trends have been robust for numerous decades, even with recent declines.

Ironically, therapeutic applications of R/S have been problematic. In definitions of multicultural identity, R/S has been recognized as a salient facet (Vieten and Lukoff 2022). Studies show clients are willing to incorporate such topics in counseling sessions (Diallo et al. 2021). Yet, training programs accredited by both CACREP and APA rarely include faith as a topic for education. This tendency leaves many therapists underprepared, uncomfortable, and hesitant in engaging matters of R/S with their clients (Mintert et al. 2020; Scott et al. 2016).

In the context of career counseling, Samuels (2020) noted R/S as an important influence in the lives of religious career decision-makers. This literature review revealed vocational researchers being interested in three general areas: R/S as religious calling, as an integral feature of career interests and values, and as a supportive role (Duffy et al. 2010). Yet, the literature contains gaps. Authors tended to operationalize R/S in a unidimensional manner, as a stand-alone construct instead of comprising multiple features. Most studies investigating religious calling in vocational matters with samples from the United States were not recent. Further, few researchers considered the influence of quest religious orientation on career development.

These disparities prompted questions. What predictors would emerge when gender effects are checked and when R/S is not conceptualized as a stand-alone construct and instead includes several features of faith? Would a multifaceted operationalization of R/S provide a more nuanced complexity of this diversity facet and offer therapists, such as career counselors, creative interventions for religious career decision-makers?

The following discussion intends to answer these inquiries. Pertinent definitions for religion and spirituality are explicated. A rationale for hierarchical regression analyses checking the effects of gender is delineated. Furthermore, practical therapeutic applications derived from the predictive associations form a possible interventive strategy for career counselors.

1.1. Distinguishing Religion and Spirituality

Religion and spirituality (R/S) are not easily differentiated. No universal definition of the terms exists; yet several consistently used descriptors have been embraced in the literature that aid in distinguishing these concepts (Hall et al. 2014; Miller and Thoresen 2003; Paul Victor and Treschuk 2020). In general, religion and spirituality are regarded as convergent or divergent constructs. Convergence points to the words being indistinguishable and interchangeable (i.e., synonymous in nature) (Jensen 2021). Divergence underscores differences. For instance, religion has been deemed as group-oriented, rational, and objective with expected behaviors and doctrinal beliefs. It is aligned with organized religious lifestyles (e.g., motivational features prompting certain religious behavior/thinking) (Ives and Kidwell 2019; Lindholm and Astin 2006). Spirituality is perceived as being individualistic, emotive, non-rational, and subjective; it is viewed as a pursuit of the transcendent or sacred and tends to be more experiential in nature (e.g., satisfaction levels with God or life in general) (Campanario 2018; Constantine et al. 2006; Lindholm and Astin 2006).

When categorizing how people embrace the sacred dimension of the human condition, Mintert et al. (2020) noted three options. They tend to be both religious and spiritual, one or the other–religious or spiritual, or not interested–neither religious nor spiritual (Worthington et al. 1996). For the ‘both’ option, individuals (e.g., religious career decision-makers) most likely blend the constructs in their lifestyles. Coppola et al. (2021) remarked religion and spirituality are functionally intertwined and in many ways inseparable. In other words, the distinguishing features for each term are combined or melded together, marking some of the complexity in a faith journey. Such an inclination points to people’s R/S experience as both group and individualistic, rational, and emotive, etc.

1.2. Empirical Investigations of Career and Religion/Spirituality

Many authors in the mid-1950s to late-1980s regarded religion as irrelevant, yielding no influence on career development (Davidson and Caddell 1994). Yet, this rigid assessment slowly waned. Space for a more positive perspective transpired in the early 1990s. Aten et al. (2012) marked this decade as one where religion became more popular and accepted by psychologically trained professionals. For example, Stanton Jones (1994), a clinical psychologist and educator at Wheaton College, a Christian institution in Illinois, wrote an article about the constructive relationship between religion and psychology that was published in the American Psychologist.

In the season of greater openness, several researchers from a variety of countries and different faiths published studies on R/S in occupational matters. Lips-Wiersma (2002) discovered New Zealanders’ spirituality (i.e., meaning making) influenced their vocational behavior such as career choices and transitions. Duffy and Blustein (2005) reported high levels of spiritual awareness and intrinsic religious motivation positively correlated with high career decision self-efficacy and career choice commitment among American undergraduates. Constantine et al. (2006) concluded that religion had a critical role in African American college students’ career development. These participants mentioned God having a plan for their lives and how R/S prompted career aspirations and provided support for life challenges. Chenot and Kim (2017) found spiritual sensitivity of American undergraduate social workers related to their pursuit of social change and social justice. Campanario (2018) noted that religious training (i.e., Ignatian Christian theology) in an American college-level career exploration course led to a higher level of awareness of purpose in life. In an undergraduate class in Israel titled Social Work and Judaism, Ranz (2021) mentioned religious training revealed biased perspectives about keeping social work and religion separate. The course also awakened the students’ own religious values and a sensitivity to clients’ spirituality. Last, Bal and Kökalan (2021) revealed how intrinsic religious motivation among Turkish employees (i.e., aged 20–60) decreased the negative effects of burnout and increased job satisfaction.

These investigations underscored authors’ comfortability with R/S in career matters. Duffy and Dik (2009) remarked that vocational planning was a means for some career decision-makers to discover the will of God. Further, the studies revealed the benefits of people’s R/S in occupational matters and the importance of training therapists on this diversity facet. Yet, as stated previously, certain gaps remain in the literature. The authors apparently considered R/S a unidimensional construct instead of encompassing several elements and few investigated the impact of quest religiosity. What is needed is a multipart approach to the operationalization of R/S, one that incorporates a variety of dimensions of R/S in one study.

Another widely examined topic in the R/S-career development literature is religious calling. Duffy and Sedlack (2010) reported calling as being a salient construct in a person’s life. It has been positively related to vocational identity (Creed et al. 2020; Hirschi and Herrmann 2012), career commitment, career maturity (Duffy and Dik 2013), and career decidedness (Duffy and Sedlack 2007). Calling has also been found to negatively associate with career indecision (Duffy and Sedlack 2007). Bott and Duffy (2015) reported people who have the presence of a calling to a career are likely to sense meaning in their life and possess high career decision-making self-efficacy. Additionally, individuals with the presence of a career calling were likely to have thoughts and practice behaviors that promote self-improvement. However, despite the robust literature on this topic, most studies using samples from the United States are not recent. This highlights the need for current inquiries into the relationships between religious calling and career development constructs.

Therefore, the intent of the present study was to assess the predictive relationship between R/S and career constructs while accounting for gender. The following research questions were pursued:

• For religious undergraduates in the United States, what combination of R/S variables (i.e., religious calling, spiritual well-being, religious orientation) predicts career development variables (i.e., vocational identity, career commitment, and career indecision) when checking for gender effects?
• With the employment of a multidimensional operationalization of R/S, what creative interventions for career counselors and therapeutic educators emerge from hierarchical regression analyses?

In the present investigation, we had the following outcome expectations.

• The R/S variables will become positive predictors for vocational identity and career commitment and negative predictors for career indecision (Bal and Kökalan 2021; Duffy and Dik 2013; Robert et al. 2006).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

Selection criteria for participant recruitment were five-fold. Participants needed to be enrolled in college, aged 18–22, self-identified as religious (i.e., religion having a high-level of importance in their lifestyle), and registered in a career exploration course that included a battery of career and religious instruments. In addition, participants needed to self-report from a variety of ethnic backgrounds. Therefore, recruitment at a private Christian institution recognizing the importance of diversity was deemed as a highly probable location to secure individuals meeting most if not all criteria.

Participants were undergraduates (n = 290) enrolled in a career exploration course at a private Christian university located in the Midwest of the United States. The students comprised 220 females (76%) and 70 males (24%) with an average age of 19.8 years. Self-identified ethnic affiliations included: 86% European American, 6% Asian American, 3% Hispanic American, 3% African American, and 2% other or undesignated. Concerning religious landscape, 89% indicated religion was very important, 9% indicated religion is somewhat important, 1% indicated religion is not important, and 1% indicated not sure. As for religious affiliation, 64% identified as Protestant, 32% as other or undesignated, and 4% as Catholic. In addition, all participants affirmed psychology as their major.

Hence, these undergraduates were prime candidates for this study, meeting most of the selection criteria; in other words, they make up a ‘purposive sampling’ suitable for the intentions in this investigation (Tie et al. 2019). Participants indicated a high interest level in R/S and were living at a stage in the human life cycle (e.g., 19–20 years old) where occupational exploration is an important developmental period. Specifically, these young adults were most likely pre-occupied by goals such as the crystallization, specification, and implementation of a career identity toward a vocational role (Hartung 2021; Super et al. 1996).

2.2. Procedures

The study lasted six years and followed the protocol set forth by the Institutional Review Board of the university (IRB ID Number—1718.22). Data collection transpired only in the fall semester (i.e., September-December). The career exploration course is a requirement in psychology majors’ plan of study. It runs for eleven hours spread throughout a fourteen-week semester. One of the first assignments is a Career Planning Battery comprising twenty measures, seven career and 13 R/S constructs. The professor assigns the battery at the start of the semester; completion is expected within a week.

Although an assignment, students were routinely informed about this study’s purpose and possible risks along with the provision that they had the freedom to withdraw their scores from the study without penalty. Consent for inclusion of their results per measure was secured; details were verbally discussed on the first day of class. Participants were also instructed to read through the consent form again and submit it with their signature along with the completed measures in the battery. Incentives consisted of participation points.

Trained research assistants scored the measures in the battery They also entered the scores in an Excel file and then transferred them to an SPSS file. Interpretative information about the career and R/S results for each participant was dispersed throughout the semester schedule.

2.3. Measures

As previously mentioned, the Career Planning Battery consisted of both career and R/S instruments, a total of twenty constructs. The seven vocational constructs stemming from four instruments are categorized into three general sections: vocational identity, career commitment, and career indecision. As for the 13 R/S constructs, these are derived from five measures and generally encompass religious calling, spiritual well-being, and religious motivation.

2.3.1. Career Development Variables

• Vocational Identity
  Vocational identity (VI) is one of several aspects of people’s overall self-concept. Holland et al. 1980) considered VI as a mental image of one’s occupational interests and pursuits; it reflects the level of clarity existing at the time of administration. Turner and Lapan (2005) argued VI reveals individuals’ “integration and crystallization of [their] aptitudes and opportunities into a consistent sense of [their] fit into the vocational world” (p. 420). In this study, VI was measured using two different approaches, a classic and a more recent operationalization.

  ∘

  Vocational Identity Scale (VIS). This instrument is the classic Holland operationalization of vocational identity. VIS is the first of the three scales in the My Vocational Situation (MVS; Holland et al. 1980). The 18 true-false items assess the lucidity of participants’ career interests and pursuits. Higher scores reflect greater clarity. Holland et al. (1993) reported estimates of test-retest reliability coefficients at 0.75. Wang et al. (2006) along with Ross (2020) mentioned internal consistency estimates of α = 0.84–0.89. Concerning validity, Johnson and Asama (1992) conducted a factor analysis and concluded VIS consists of a single factor.

  ∘

  Vocational Identity Measure (VIM). According to Gupta et al. (2015), “Having a strong vocational identity is a prelude to the formation of individuals’ overall identity” (p. 79). The authors questioned the true-false response format of the My Vocational Situation (Holland et al. 1980) being able to accurately assess vocational identity. Hence, they developed the VIM, which contains 20 items and uses a five-point Likert response format. The authors’ described the VIM’s psychometric information as having “sound internal reliability (alpha = 0.96), a stable single-factor structure, and incremental validity over the MVS” (p. 79).

   

• Career Commitment
  Career commitment identifies career decision-makers’ willingness to explore vocational options and their confidence level for investing in or attaching to them. Zanardelli et al. (2016) referred to it as the ‘pinnacle achievement’ of the undergraduate experience. In this study, one measure of career commitment was used.

  ∘

  Vocational Exploration and Commitment Scale (VECS). The VECS measures progress toward committing to occupational choices (Blustein et al. 1989). Participants respond to 19 items using a five-point Likert scale (levels of agreement); lower scores indicate higher commitment levels (i.e., a firm attachment) while higher scores reveal a weaker attachment and lower confidence in career goals. As for reliability, Blustein et al. (1989) reported internal consistency coefficients between 0.90 and 0.92. Concerning validity, Blustein et al. (1989) noted the VECS closely related (0.85) to the Vocational Decision Scale (VDS; Jones and Chenery 1980) and the Career Exploration Survey (CES; Stumpf et al. 1983) (i.e., −0.55).

• Career Indecision
  For almost one hundred years, career indecision has been an important issue addressed in vocational psychology (Xu 2020). Swanson and D’Achiardi (2005) regarded career indecision as “the inability to specify an educational or occupational choice” (p. 362). Both internal and external barriers contribute to this inability. In this study, one measure with four specific barriers was employed.

  ∘

  Career Factor Inventory (CFI). Hinderances to career decision-making were measured using the CFI (Chartrand et al. 1997). The 21 items detect informational and emotional impediments that include the need for career information (CI), the need for self-knowledge (SK), career choice anxiety (CA), and generalized indecisiveness (GI). High scores indicate more indecision. As for reliability, Chartrand et al. (1990) found that internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) were between 0.73 and 0.86 for each scale. Puffer (1998) reported 0.93 for each scale. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed the four-factor model with a coefficient of determinant of 0.99 and goodness of fit of 0.93 (Chartrand et al. 1990).

2.3.2. Religion/Spirituality Variables

In the multidimensional operationalization of religion/spirituality, the ‘both’ option in the framework espoused by Mintert et al. (2020) was followed. People can be both religious and spiritual. From the authors’ vantage, the constructs are not synonymous; they are separate and distinct. Functionally, they intertwine and appear inseparable (Coppola et al. 2021).

The representative of religion in this study was religious orientation or motivation. The selected measures assess participants’ motives for religious thoughts and actions. Spirituality was embodied by religious calling (i.e., a transcendent summon) and spiritual well-being (i.e., satisfaction with God and life in general). Both are individualistic and experiential.

 

• Religious Motivation
  Religious motivation underscores the kinds of impetuses driving people’s religiosity/spirituality. Jennings (2016) mentioned it being “an important determinant of individual behavior and attitude formation” (p. 295). Several kinds of religious motivation have emerged since the 1950s with Gordon Allport. For the purposes of this study, assessment was limited to three–intrinsic, extrinsic, and quest religious orientation.

  ∘

  Intrinsic and Extrinsic Orientation (IRO/ERO)

  ▪

  Religious Orientation Scale–Revised (ROS-R). Intrinsic (IRO) and extrinsic (ERO) religiosity were assessed via the ROS–R (Gorsuch and McPherson 1989). There are 14 items with a five-point Likert response format. IRO (i.e., eight items) entails people ‘living’ religion; there is a fervency to their drive level. Religion is considered an ‘end-in-itself.’ ERO (i.e., six questions) describes a utilitarian approach. People ‘use’ religion and generally have a superficial, self-serving approach in their drive. Reliability data include estimates of 0.83 for IRO and 0.65 for ERO (Gorsuch and McPherson 1989). Kaur et al. (2020) reported estimates of 0.71 for each scale.

  ∘

  Quest Religious Orientation (QRO)

  ▪

  Quest Scale (QS). To assess participants’ QRO, Batson’s (1976) Quest Scale (QS) was selected. The composite score is a one-dimensional assessment; the 12 items with a nine-point Likert response format tap the three facets in Batson’s quest religiosity. First is responsiveness, a willingness to attend to existential challenges and life’s complex questions. One chooses to not divorce self from uncomfortable experiences. Second is doubt positivism, a courageous and positive response to uncertainty. Third is openness, a continuing pursuit of religious information that may lead to religious belief modifications (Batson et al. 1993). As for reliability data, Batson (1976) reported an alpha coefficient of 0.82 for the composite score. Mikani et al. (2022) mentioned estimates of 0.80 for the composite score.

  ▪

  Multidimensional Quest Orientation Scale (MQOS). Quest religiosity was also measured with the MQOS. Questioning the predictive validity of the QS composite score in Batson’s measure, Beck and Jessup (2004) created a multidimensional appraisal of the quest motive. There are nine subscales using 62 items with a seven-point Likert response. The subscales include existential motives (EXM), complexity (COM), tentativeness (TEN), exploration (EXP), change (CHAN), religious angst (RA), ecumenism (EC), universality (UNV), and moral interpretation (MI). Concerning reliability, Beck and Jessup reported alpha coefficients ranging from 0.68 to 0.90 across the nine components. Crosby (2013) mentioned alphas ranging from 0.83 to 0.89 for the nine subscales. As for validity, Beck and Jessup reported each subscale was unidimensional based on their principal component analyses.

   

  Six of the nine MQOS subscales were used in this study. Following Puffer’s (2018) prescriptions, EXM (i.e., a measure of the motivation for existential interests driving persons to discover life-purposes) and COM (i.e., an assessment of the level of preference for non-naive views on religiosity) were used to assess Batson’s (1976) responsiveness (i.e., a willingness to attend to existential challenges and life’s complex questions); TEN (i.e., a measure of the level of preference for religious/spiritual questions over absolute and ultimate answers) was utilized to measure doubt positivism (i.e., a courageous and positive response to uncertainty); and EXP (i.e., an assessment of the effort level to analyze present beliefs in a person’s R/S and to investigate new R/S knowledge) and CHAN (i.e., a measure of the level of willingness to alter R/S perspectives and consistent inspection of current belief system) were employed to assess openness (i.e., a continuing pursuit of religious information that may lead to religious belief modifications). Last, RA was included because it assesses peoples’ experience with negative emotions due to challenging the status quo (e.g., doubts, questions) and isolation during their faith pilgrimage (Beck and Jessup 2004).

   

• Religious Calling
  The Latin word vocationem translates into English as a calling (Harper 2022). In the research literature, authors conceptualized and measured calling in a variety of ways (Dik et al. 2021). For instance, Cahalan (2017) regarded calling as the agenda between a transcendent summoner (i.e., the caller, such as God) and humans (i.e., the called). In this study, one measure for religious calling was utilized.

  ∘

  Brief Calling Scale (BCS). Duffy and Dik (2013) conceptualized calling as an orientation comprising three facets, “an external [or transcendent] summons, meaning/purpose [derived from work], and a prosocial motivation [as a key motiving source]” (p. 429). This perspective is not limited to only religious or spiritual persons (Dik and Duffy 2009). Further, they identified two kinds of calling: the presence of a calling (PC) and search of a calling (SC). For the former, people recognize the existence of a call (i.e., it is possessed) for a specific occupation; the latter reveals individuals acknowledging they are currently pursuing a call (i.e., it is not present) for their career preference.

   

  The BSC (Dik et al. 2012) contains four items using a five-point Likert scale; each kind of calling involves two items. The range of scores for both PC and SC is 2–10. As for psychometric data, Dik and Steger (2006) noted internal consistency at 0.86 for PC and 0.87 for SC; Dik et al. (2012) reported 0.79 for PC and 0.82 for SC. Further, construct validity for PC and SC was established via assessments of convergent and divergent validity (Dik et al. 2012).

   

• Spiritual Well-Being
  Spiritual well-being (SWB) is one of several dimensions in people’s overall sense of well-being, a state of being whole, healthy, and happy (Davis 2019). SWB is considered a uniting or integrating force in an individual’s life (Coppola et al. 2021). In this study, one measure for SWB was used.

  ∘

  Spiritual Well-Being Scale (SWBS). The SWBS (Paloutzian and Ellison 1991) measures participants’ perception of their current level of well-being via two subscales, religious well-being (RWB) and existential well-being (EWB). A six-point Likert response format is employed for the 20 items. RWB (i.e., 10 items) underscores participants’ present satisfaction level with God; the EWB (i.e., 10-items) points to levels of satisfaction with life in general. You and Yoo (2016) confirmed the two-dimensional structure of the SWBS. Bufford et al. (1991) reported internal consistency coefficients, 0.94 for RWB and 0.86 for EWB. In this study, to avoid redundancy, only RWB and EWB are utilized, but not the composite scale, SWBS.

3. Results

3.1. Research Design

Following the research questions in this study, the goal was to develop a predictive model of career development using multiple indicators of religion/spirituality (R/S) among religious undergraduates while controlling for gender effects. A series of hierarchical regression procedures were used. The targeted constructs for career development, vocational identity, career commitment, and career indecision led to the selection of seven measures which became our seven criterion variables. As for the predictor variables, gender was the designated constant in model one, followed by the 13 R/S variables in model two (Crowson 2020). This arrangement allowed for the examination of the amount of change in variance explained by the R/S predictors after partialling out variance related to gender.

The inclusion of a gender variable in the predictive model was based on the plethora of research in the career development literature. For instance, there are some consistent gender differences in several constructs (e.g., vocational personality and career indecision; Puffer 2011). Among work-place experiences, Schultheiss (2020) delineated several barriers (e.g., sexual harassment, microaggressions) for women.

The 13 R/S variables were entered simultaneously in model two. There was no specific religious or spiritual theoretical justification. Placement of the measures followed one consistent pattern per criterion variable: first, religious calling (PC, SC; presence and searching); second, spiritual well-being (RWB, EWB; religious and existential); and third, religious motivation (IRO, ERO, and QRO; intrinsic, extrinsic, and quest motives).

3.2. Preliminary Analyses

3.2.1. Assumptions with Hierarchical Regression

An appraisal of the extent to which the data met the assumptions for hierarchical regression was conducted. First, missing data along with outliers among the scores from the twenty variables were examined. For the former, pairwise deletion was employed. Allison (2001) argued pairwise deletion tends to be efficient due to the usage of more information relative to listwise deletion; pairwise can also produce consistent parameter estimates assuming missingness among the data is completely random (MCAR). Five percent of the scores for the career indecision variables were missing. This was due to the scores being inexplicitly lost; hence, MCAR appears to be an appropriate characterization of the pattern of our missing data (Tabachnick and Fidell 2019). As for outliers, authors’ reported range of scores was used as a guide for elimination. Specifically, eight outliers (i.e., four for career indecision variables and four for R/S scores) were detected and removed. Most likely, the outliers were due to input errors by research assistants.

Second, multicollinearity was checked with VIF calculations in SPSS and a visual inspection of the correlation matrix (see Table 2). All VIF values ranged from 1.06 to 2.59, making them under the conservative threshold of 3.0, and no correlation coefficients exceeded 0.70, suggesting that the data does not show multicollinearity (Gaskin 2020). Third, two negatively skewed distributions, religious well-being (RWB) and intrinsic religious orientation (IRO) were identified among the 20 constructs. Logarithmic transformations were performed improving normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity (Tabachnick and Fidell 2019). Fourth, independence of observations was examined using the Durbin-Watson statistic. Values ranged from 1.66 to 2.04; these are in the middle of the 0–4 range, indicating little to no autocorrelation (CFI Team 2022).

3.2.2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlational Findings

Descriptive statistics for the career and R/S variables separated by gender are presented in

Table 1. Comparison of Career and R/S Means between Males and Female Undergraduates.

	Males		Females		t-test	p-Value	ES
	Means	SD	Means	SD
VIS	10.60	4.22	10.73	3.88	−0.414	0.679	0.03
VIM	72.63	14.57	72.17	15.24	0.216	0.829	0.03
VECS	49.70	16.96	51.28	15.38	−0.851	0.396	0.10
CI	21.14	5.20	21.93	4.91	−2.210	0.035	0.16 @
SK	13.20	5.20	13.53	5.18	−0.886	0.376	0.06
CA	15.16	5.08	16.13	5.25	−2.618	0.009	0.19 @
GI	13.39	3.93	14.67	4.24	−4.424	<0.001	0.31 #
PC	7.43	2.06	7.51	1.75	−0.380	0.705	0.04
SC	5.15	2.47	5.37	2.33	−0.888	0.376	0.10
RWB	52.98	8.73	52.73	8.25	0.279	0.781	0.03
EWB	49.22	8.40	48.96	6.51	0.309	0.758	0.04
IRO	32.13	6.33	33.17	4.29	−1.851	0.065	0.19
ERO	15.34	4.37	15.33	3.98	0.009	0.993	0.00
QS	63.59	12.74	58.82	14.17	2.898	0.004	0.34 #
EXM	19.86	6.43	18.40	5.72	1.644	0.104	0.25
COM	36.21	8.41	33.85	6.97	2.038	0.045	0.32 #
TEN	49.33	8.58	47.88	8.42	1.623	0.106	0.17
EXP	26.47	7.85	24.84	7.10	2.025	0.040	0.22 @
CHAN	30.09	9.71	24.78	10.30	3.818	<0.001	0.52 *
RA	22.50	9.43	23.69	8.89	−0.907	0.367	0.13

Note: N = 70 for males; N = 220 for females; VIS = Vocational Identity Scale; VIM = Vocational Identity Measure; VECS = Vocational Exploration and Commitment Scale; CI = Need for Career Information; SK = Need for Self-Knowledge; CA = Career Choice Anxiety; GI = Generalized Indecisiveness; PC = Presence of a Calling; SC = Searching for a Calling; RWB = Religious Well-Being; EWB = Existential Well-Being; IRO = Intrinsic Religious Orientation; ERO = Extrinsic Religious Orientation; QS = Batson’s Quest Scale; EXM = Existential Motives; COM = Complexity; TEN = Tentativeness; EXP = Exploration; CHAN = Change; RA = Religious Angst; following Cohen’s suggested ranges: @ = small ES; # = medium ES; * = large ES. Jacob Cohen (1992). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences-2nd edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

. The statistical check for gender differences was computed using an independent samples t-test. Unexpectedly, only career indecision variables were distinctively different among the career development variables. There were three gender distinctions, two small effect sizes (ES) with CI (0.16) and CA (0.19), and one medium ES (0.31) with GI. Specifically, female participants had a higher need for career information (CI), and higher levels of career choice anxiety (CA) and general indecisiveness (GI). Similar gender differences are found in the literature. Boo and Kim (2020) found females had a higher preference for the pursuit of career information relative to males; Mau et al. (2016) discovered female participants scored higher on the dependent (career) decision-making style than male participants; and Puffer (1998) reported female college students had higher levels of CA and GI than their male counterparts.

For the R/S measures, only constructs measuring quest religiosity contained gender differences. There were four distinctions, a small ES for EXP (0.22), two medium ESs for QS (0.34) and COM (0.32), and one large ES for CHAN (0.52). Specifically, male participants were reporting a higher comfortability with the quest religious orientation (QS) in general (i.e., Batson’s responsiveness, doubt positivism, and openness). Further, they have a higher preference level for complex religious views (COM) and higher willingness levels to exert effort to find new religious knowledge (EXP) and to transform present religious belief systems (CHAN).

Pearson product-moment correlations were conducted for the career and R/S variables. The matrix is presented in

Table 2. Correlations for Career and Religious/Spiritual Variables.

	PC	SC	RWB	EWB	IRO	ERO	QS	EXM	COM	TEN	EXP	CHAN	RA
VIS	0.51 **	−0.42 **	0.24 **	0.40 **	0.16 **	−0.08 *	−0.20 **	−0.14 *	−0.05	0.04	0.12 **	−0.27 **	−0.27 **
VIM	0.75 **	−0.52 **	0.22 **	0.47 **	0.16 **	0.03	−0.23 **	−0.14 *	−0.08	−0.01	0.02	−0.22 **	−0.19 **
VEC	−0.54 **	0.42 **	0.04	−0.23 **	0.01	−0.07	0.13 *	0.13 *	0.05	−0.09	−0.03	0.18 **	0.21 **
CI	−0.28 **	0.26 **	−0.03	−0.20 **	−0.01	0.06	0.11 *	0.08	0.01	−0.09	0.03	0.11	0.14 *
SK	−0.10 *	0.15 **	0.09 *	−0.09 *	0.06	0.04	0.06	0.08	0.01	−0.01	0.01	−0.02	0.09
CA	−0.45 **	0.33 **	−0.26 **	−0.48 **	−0.14 **	0.08	0.10 *	0.01	−0.01	−0.06	−0.14 **	0.07	0.24 **
GI	−0.33 **	0.21 **	−0.16 **	−0.40 **	−0.10 *	0.07	0.11 *	0.09	0.09	−0.08	−0.17 **	0.14 *	0.23 **

Note: N = 290; VIS = Vocational Identity Scale; VIM = Vocational Identity Measure; VEC = Vocational Exploration and Commitment Scale; CI = Need for Career Information; SK = Need for Self-Knowledge; CA = Career Choice Anxiety; GI = Generalized Indecisiveness; PC = Presence of a Calling; SC = Searching for a Calling; RWB = Religious Well-Being; EWB = Existential Well-Being; IRO = Intrinsic Religious Orientation; ERO = Extrinsic Religious Orientation; QS = Batson’s Quest Scale; EXM = Existential Motives; COM = Complexity; TEN = Tentativeness; EXP = Exploration; CHAN = Change; RA = Religious Angst; * = p ≤ 0.05 ** (2-tailed); and ** = p ≤ 0.01 (2-tailed).

; it does not include career-career or R/S-R/S associations. In general, the directions of the coefficients were expected. Most correlations were either small (46%; 0.1–0.3) or non-significant (42%). Eleven percent of the coefficients were medium-sized (0.4–0.5) and 1% were large (0.7).

When examining the correlations in Table 2 via a career lens, vocational identity had the highest percentage of statistically significant coefficients (77%) and the largest sizes, medium to large (0.52–0.75). Career commitment and career indecision had predominately medium to small-sized coefficients. When examining the coefficients through a R/S lens, religious calling and existential well-being were highly relatable to career variables. Specifically, religious calling had the most statistically significant coefficients (100%) with vocational variables relative to spiritual well-being (86%), and religious motivation (43%). Further, quest religiosity had the most statistically significant coefficients with vocational constructs among religious motivation variables, 86% with the Quest Scale (QS) relative to 57% with intrinsic religious orientation (IRO) and 14% with extrinsic religious orientation (ERO).

Pearson product-moment correlations were also conducted to ascertain the relationships existing between the R/S variables independent of the career variables and vice-versa.

Table 3. Correlations for Religious/Spiritual Variables.

	PC	SC	RWB	EWB	IRO	ERO	QS	EXM	COM	TEN	EXP	CHAN	RA
PC	1	−0.57 **	0.26 **	0.38 **	0.16 **	−0.01	−0.20 **	−0.13 *	−0.04	0.08	0.15 **	−0.17 **	−0.14 *
SC	−0.57 **	1	−0.10 *	−0.27 **	−0.09 *	0.04	0.09	0.14 *	−0.05	−0.08	−0.08	0.09	0.07
RWB	0.26 **	−0.10 *	1	0.60 **	0.74 **	−0.10 *	−0.22 **	−0.38 **	−0.14 *	0.16 **	0.26 **	−0.32 **	−0.43 **
EWB	0.39 **	−0.26 **	0.60 **	1	0.46 **	−0.12 *	−0.27 **	−0.31 **	−0.16 **	0.12 *	0.18 **	−0.33 **	−0.51 **
IRO	0.16 **	−0.09 *	0.74 **	0.46 **	1	−0.30 **	−0.18 **	−0.44 **	−0.12 *	0.15 **	0.30 **	−0.33 **	−0.36 **
ERO	−0.01	0.04	−0.10 *	−0.12 *	−0.30 **	1	0.06	0.14 *	0.03	−0.02	−0.09 *	0.06	0.06
QS	−0.20 **	0.09	−0.22 **	−0.27 **	−0.18 **	0.06	1	0.40 **	0.47 **	0.25 **	0.23 **	0.59 **	0.38 **
EXM	−0.13 *	0.14 *	−0.38 **	−0.31 **	−0.44 **	0.14 *	0.40 **	1	0.29 **	0.08	0.04	0.40 **	0.37 **
COM	−0.04	−0.05	−0.14 *	−0.16 **	−0.12 *	0.03	0.47 **	0.28 **	1	0.35 **	0.34 **	0.45 **	0.27 **
TEN	0.08	−0.08	0.16 **	0.12 *	0.15 **	−0.02	0.25 **	0.08	0.35 **	1	0.25 **	0.18 **	0.04
EXP	0.15 **	−0.08	0.26 **	0.18 **	0.30 **	−0.09 *	0.23 **	0.04	0.34 **	0.25 **	1	0.24 **	−0.05
CHAN	−0.17 **	0.09	−0.32 **	−0.33 **	−0.33 **	0.06	0.59 **	0.40 **	0.45 **	0.18 **	0.24 **	1	0.35 **
RA	−0.14 *	0.07	−0.43 **	−0.51 **	−0.36 **	0.06	0.38 **	0.37 **	0.27 **	0.04	−0.05	0.35 **	1

Note: N = 290; PC = Presence of a Calling; SC = Searching for a Calling; RWB = Religious Well-Being; EWB = Existential Well-Being; IRO = Intrinsic Religious Orientation; ERO = Extrinsic Religious Orientation; QS = Batson’s Quest Scale; EXM = Existential Motives; COM = Complexity; TEN = Tentativeness; EXP = Exploration; CHAN = Change; RA = Religious Angst; * = p ≤ 0.05 ** (2-tailed); and ** = p ≤ 0.01 (2-tailed).

displays the intercorrelations for the former, and

Table 4. Correlations for Career Variables.

	VIS	VIM	VEC	CI	SK	CA	GI
VIS	1	0.68 **	−0.44 **	−0.35 **	−0.17 **	−0.57 **	−0.40 **
VIM	0.68 **	1	−0.72 **	−0.43 **	−0.12 *	−0.57 **	−0.43 **
VEC	−0.44 **	−0.72 **	1	0.40 **	0.25 **	0.36 **	0.38 **
CI	−0.35 **	−0.43 **	0.40 **	1	0.54 **	0.37 **	0.27 **
SK	−0.17 **	−0.12 *	0.25 **	0.54 **	1	0.16 **	0.14 **
CA	−0.57 **	−0.57 **	0.36 **	0.37 **	0.16 **	1	0.56 **
GI	−0.40 **	−0.43 **	0.38 **	0.29 **	0.14 **	0.56 **	1

Note: N = 290; VIS = Vocational Identity Scale; VIM = Vocational Identity Measure; VEC = Vocational Exploration and Commitment Scale; CI = Need for Career Information; SK = Need for Self-Knowledge; CA = Career Choice Anxiety; GI = Generalized Indecisiveness; * = p ≤ 0.05 ** (2-tailed); and ** = p ≤ 0.01 (2-tailed).

presents for the latter. Collectively speaking, the coefficients in Table 3 were small (51.3%; 0.1–0.3) or non-significant (24.3%). The medium-sized (0.4–0.6) coefficients comprised 23.1% of the total; there was one large-sized coefficient (0.7) between religious well-being (RWB) and intrinsic religious orientation (IRO). Notably, both searching for a calling (SC) and extrinsic religious orientation (ERO) had the most (i.e., 7) non-significant relationships. The Quest Scale (QS) had positive medium-sized correlations with each of the variables from the Multidimensional Quest Orientation Scale (MQOS); this was an expected outcome.

When examining the coefficients among the career variables in Table 4, most sizes were medium (61.9%) or small (28.6%). Two relationships (9.5%) were large coefficients (0.68 and 0.72); this was between vocational identity measure (VIM) and vocational identity scale (VIS), and between VIM and career commitment (VEC), respectively. Notably, career indecision had more small coefficients (47%) relative to vocational identity and career commitment (i.e., 17% each), while vocational identity and career commitment had more medium ones (i.e., 67% each) relative to career indecision (53%). Further, there were no non-significant relationships in this matrix.

3.3. Hierarchical Regression Analyses with R/S, Gender, and Vocational Variables

In

Table 5. Hierarchical Regression Analyses for the Influence of Religion/Spirituality and Gender on Career Development Phenomenon.

	Vocational Identity (VIS)
	Model 1			Model 2
	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Gender	0.129	0.540	0.014	0.063	0.455	0.007
PC				0.687	0.136	0.316 **
SC				−0.295	0.100	−0.176 *
RWB@				0.238	0.645	0.028
EWB				0.173	0.039	0.173 *
IRO@				0.875	0.908	0.073
ERO				−0.058	0.049	−0.060
QS				−0.003	0.018	−0.011
EXM				0.037	0.039	0.055
COM				0.026	0.033	0.048
TEN				−0.016	0.025	−0.033
EXP				0.044	0.032	0.082
CHAN				−0.071	0.025	−0.188 *
RA				−0.052	0.026	−0.120 *
F	0.057			11.662
Sig.	0.811			<0.001
R2	0			0.372
R2 change	0			0.371
N = 290
	Vocational Identity (VIM)
	Model 1			Model 2
	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Gender	0.119	2.063	0.003	−0.601	1.334	−0.017
PC				5.051	0.398	0.609 **
SC				−0.780	0.293	−0.122 *
RWB@				2.665	1.891	0.082
EWB				0.574	0.114	0.269 **
IRO@				−3.789	2.660	−0.830
ERO				0.265	0.144	0.072
QS				−0.031	0.054	−0.029
EXM				0.105	0.113	0.041
COM				0.077	0.950	0.038
TEN				−0.144	0.073	−0.081 *
EXP				−0.245	0.094	−0.119 *
CHAN				−0.009	0.073	0.006
RA				0.023	0.077	0.014
F	0.003			33.572
Sig.	0.954			<0.001
R2	0			0.630
R2 change	0			0.630
N = 290
	Career Commitment (VECS)
	Model 1			Model 2
	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Gender	1.321	2.151	0.036	2.289	1.750	0.063
PC				−4.092	0.523	−0.473 **
SC				0.889	0.384	0.133 *
RWB@				−11.307	2.482	−0.334 **
EWB				−0.162	0.150	−0.073
IRO@				−0.545	3.491	−0.011
ERO				−0.221	0.189	−0.057
QS				−0.078	0.071	−0.070
EXM				0.147	0.149	0.055
COM				0.072	0.125	0.033
TEN				−0.174	0.096	−0.094
EXP				−0.019	0.123	−0.009
CHAN				0.184	0.096	0.122
RA				0.338	0.101	0.194 **
F	0.377			13.984
Sig.	0.540			<0.001
R2	0.001			0.415
R2 change	0.001			0.414
N = 290
	Career Indecision–Need for Career Information (CI)
	Model 1			Model 2
	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Gender	0.697	0.699	0.060	0.772	0.694	0.066
PC				−0.510	0.207	−0.186 **
SC				0.261	0.152	0.123
RWB@				−1.147	0.984	−0.107
EWB				−0.092	0.059	−0.131
IRO@				−0.487	1.385	−0.032
ERO				0.083	0.075	0.067
QS				0.001	0.028	0.003
EXM				0.005	0.059	0.006
COM				−0.044	0.050	−0.064
TEN				0.006	0.038	0.010
EXP				0.053	0.049	0.078
CHAN				0.022	0.038	0.046
RA				0.048	0.040	0.086
F	0.994			2.855
Sig.	0.320			<0.001
R2	0.004			0.132
R2 change	0.004			0.129
N = 276
	Career Indecision–Need for Self−Knowledge (SK)
	Model 1			Model 2
	B	B SE	β	B	B SE	β
Gender	0.285	0.727	0.024	0.205	0.744	0.017
PC				−0.126	0.222	−0.044
SC				0.194	0.163	0.088
RWB@				−2.566	1.056	−0.231 *
EWB				−0.107	0.064	−0.147
IRO@				−0.029	1.485	0.002
ERO				0.058	0.080	0.046
QS				0.024	0.030	0.066
EXM				0.076	0.063	0.086
COM				−0.032	0.053	−0.045
TEN				0.006	0.041	0.010
EXP				0.018	0.052	0.026
CHAN				−0.059	0.041	−0.119
RA				0.054	0.043	0.095
F	0.153			1.513
Sig.	0.696			0.106
R2	0.001			0.075
R2 change	0.001			0.075
N = 256
	Career Indecision–Career Choice Anxiety (CA)
	Model 1			Model 2
	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Gender	1.010	0.728	0.083	0.430	0.625	0.035
PC				−0.746	0.187	−0.260 **
SC				0.239	0.137	0.108
RWB@				0.960	0.887	0.086
EWB				−0.253	0.053	−0.343 **
IRO@				−0.338	1.247	−0.021
ERO				0.060	0.067	0.047
QS				0.012	0.025	0.032
EXM				−0.141	0.053	−0.160 *
COM				−0.045	0.045	−0.064
TEN				0.030	0.034	0.048
EXP				0.019	0.044	0.026
CHAN				−0.042	0.034	−0.085
RA				0.047	0.036	0.082
F	1.921			10.258
Sig.	0.167			<0.001
R2	0.007			0.354
R2 change	0.007			0.347
N = 276
	Career Indecision–General Indecisiveness (GI)
	Model 1			Model 2
	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Gender	1.304	0.582	0.134 *	1.253	0.544	0.129 *
PC				−0.469	0.162	−0.204 *
SC				0.012	0.119	−0.007
RWB@				−0.968	0.771	−0.108
EWB				−0.195	0.046	−0.330 **
IRO@				−0.840	1.084	−0.066
ERO				0.046	0.059	0.045
QS				−0.009	0.022	−0.030
EXM				−0.016	0.046	−0.023
COM				0.057	0.039	0.100
TEN				−0.020	0.030	0.041
EXP				−0.079	0.038	−0.138 *
CHAN				0.026	0.030	0.064
RA				0.026	0.031	0.056
F	5.016			6.026
Sig.	0.026			<0.001
R2	0.018			0.224
R2 change	0.018			0.226
N = 276

Note. VIS = Vocational identity Scale; VIM = Vocational Identity Measure; VECS = Vocational Exploration and Commitment Scale; CI = Need for Career Information; SK = Need for Self-Knowledge; CA = Career Choice Anxiety; GI = Generalized indecisiveness; PC = Presence of Calling; SC = Searching for a Calling, RWB^@ = transformed Religious Well-Being; EWB = Existential Well-Being; IRO^@ = transformed Intrinsic Religious Orientation; ERO = Extrinsic Religious Orientation; QS = Quest Scale (Batson’s); EXM = Existential Motives; COM = Complexity; TEN = Tentativeness; EXP = Exploration; CHAN = Change; RA = Religious Angst; B = unstandardized beta coefficient; SE B = unstandardized beta coefficient standard error, β = standardized beta coefficient; * = p ≤ 0.05, and ** = p ≤ 0.001.

, results from the hierarchical regression procedures of the influence of R/S on career development variables controlling for gender are displayed. Overall, three consistent predictors emerged, presence of a calling (PC), existential well-being (EWB), and quest religiosity. PC appeared six times, EWB emerged four times, and quest religiosity surfaced seven times via five subscales of the Multidimensional Quest Orientation Scale (MQOS). The fivesome included religious angst (RA), exploration (EXP), tentativeness (TEN), existential motives (EXM), and change (CHAN). Further, three other predictors were discovered appearing 1–3 times; these included search of a calling (SC), religious well-being (RWB), and gender.

As expected, PC and EWB were positive predictors for vocational identity, and negative predictors for career indecision. Unexpectedly, the direction for the quest religiosity variables was mixed. For vocational identity (VI), CHAN, RA, EXP, and TEN were negative predictors; that is, higher levels of VI were associated with lower levels of these quest motive variables. For career commitment, RA was a negative predictor; that is, higher career commitment levels were related to lower levels of religious angst. Yet, EXM and EXP were positive predictors for career indecision; that is, lower levels of career indecision were associated with higher levels of the quest variables.

Specifically, for vocational identity as measured by the Vocational Identity Scale (VIS) in the My Vocational Situation (MVS; Holland et al. 1980), the findings revealed gender in model one did not contribute to the regression model, F (1, 289) = 0.899, p = 0.811. The introduction of the R/S variables in model two explained 37.2% of the variation in VIS, and this change in R² was significant, F (14, 276) = 11.66, p < 0.001. Although gender was not a predictor, both presence of a calling (PC) and existential well-being (EWB) were positive predictors—an expected result; whereas searching for a calling (SC), change (CHAN), and religious angst (RA) were negative predictors of VIS—unexpected findings.

For vocational identity as measured via the Vocational Identity Measure (VIM; Gupta et al. 2015), the results indicated gender at model one was also not contributing to the regression model, F (1, 289) = 0.003, p = 0.954. The introduction of gender with the R/S variables in model two explained 63% of the variation in VIM, and this change in R² was significant, F (14, 276) = 33.57, p < 0.001. Although gender was not a predictor, both presence of a calling (PC) and existential well-being (EWB) were expected positive predictors, while searching for a call (SC), exploration (EXP), and tentativeness (TEN) were unexpected negative predictors.

For career commitment as measured by the Vocational and Exploration Scale (VECS), the outcome revealed gender in model one was not significant, F (1, 289) = 0.377, p = 0.540. The introduction of gender and the R/S variables in model two explained 41.5% of the variation in VECS, and this change in R² was significant, F (14, 276) = 13.98, p < 0.001. Although gender was not a predictor, presence of a calling (PC) was a negative predictor, an expected result. Searching for a calling (SC), religious well-being (RWB), and religious angst (RA) were positive predictors, unexpected outcomes. Further, it is important to note that RWB originally emerged as a negative predictor. Since it was transformed, the direction was reversed (Tabachnick and Fidell 2019). High scores with VECS indicate lower career commitment (Blustein et al. 1989). Thus, PC as a negative predictor means it relates to high career commitment, while SC, RWB, and RA as positive predictors mean they relate to low vocational attachment.

For career indecision as the need for career information (CI), the findings indicated gender in model one was not significant, F (1, 275) = 0.99, p = 0.320. The introduction of gender and the R/S variables in model two was significant, explaining 13.2% of the variation in CI, and this change in R² was significant, F (14, 262) = 2.86, p < 0.001. Presence of a calling (PC) was a negative predictor, an expected outcome. Higher scores in this R/S variable are related to lower need levels for career information (Chartrand et al. 1997).

For career indecision as the need for self-knowledge (SK), the results indicated gender in model one was not a significant predictor, F (1, 274) = 0.153, p = 0.696. The introduction of gender and R/S variables in model two was also not significant, F (14, 261) = 1.51, p = 0.106. This outcome was unexpected.

For career indecision as career choice anxiety (CA), the outcome showed gender in model one as not significant, F (1, 275) = 1.92, p = 0.167. The introduction of gender and the R/S variables in model two was significant, explaining 35.4% of variation in CA, F (14, 262) = 10.26, p < 0.001. Concerning the predictors, presence of a calling (PC), existential well-being (EWB), and existential motives (EXM) were expectantly negative predictors. Lower scores of these R/S variables underscore a higher level of career choice anxiety (Chartrand et al. 1997).

For career indecision as generalized indecisiveness (GI), the results revealed gender in model one being significant and explaining 1.8% of the variation in GI, F (1, 275) = 5.02, p = 0.026. The introduction of gender and the R/S variables in model two was also significant, explaining an additional 22.4% of the variation in GI, F (14, 262) = 6.03, p < 0.001. Gender emerged as a positive predictor, while presence of a calling (PC), existential well-being (EWB), and exploration (EXP) were negative ones. Lower scores for these R/S variables associate with higher scores of general indecisiveness (Chartrand et al. 1997). Together, these expected results explained 24.2% of the variance in GI.

3.4. Suppression Effects

Last, an analysis of possible suppression effects among the predictor variables was conducted. Although suppression in regression research can be overlooked and ignored, its effects can impact the interpretation of a predictive model (Guinn 2019; Martinez Gutierrez and Cribbie 2021). A suppressor variable can positively or negatively change the relationship between predictor and criterion variables. Yet, identification of suppressor variables becomes challenging when predictive models include several predictors (i.e., >2 or 3).

Two procedures were performed to identify and confirm the presence of any suppressor variables. First, comparisons were made between the Pearson product-moment correlation of the predictor and criterion variables with the standardized beta weight for the predictor variables (Tabachnick and Fidell 2019). Seventy-eight comparisons resulted, 13 predictor variables times six criterion variables. The need for self-knowledge (SK) was excluded; the hierarchical regression associated with SK and the 13 predictor variables along with gender was discovered to be non-significant.

Only two of the 78 comparisons met the criteria suggested by Tabachnick and Fidell (2019). The outcomes are presented in

Table 6. Comparisons of Correlation Coefficients between Predictor and Criterion Variable with and the Beta Weights of Predictor Variables.

Predictor Variable	Criterion Variable	Absolute Value of the Correlation Coefficient between Predictor and Criterion Variables	Beta Weight of Predictor Variable
IRO	VIM	0.16	0.830 @
RWB	VECS	0.04	0.334 @

Note: RWB = Religious Well-Being; IRO = Intrinsic Religious Orientation; VECS = Vocational Explo ration and Commitment Scale; VIM = Vocational Identity Measure; and @ = reversed sign due to transformed predictor variable.

. The suspected suppressors were detected because the beta weight of the predictor variable was “significantly different from zero,” and the beta weight of the predictor variable was larger than the “absolute value of the correlation coefficient” between the predictor and criterion variables (p. 133).

Second, the possible suppressor variables were removed from the original predictive model to examine possible changes in the regression outcomes. Attention was focused on alterations in explained variance, in the combination of emergent predictors, and in the standardized beta weights relative to the beta weights in the original equation. Tabachnick and Fidell (2019) argued suppressor variables “suppress variance that is irrelevant to the prediction of the [criterion variable]” (p. 133).

When intrinsic religious orientation (IRO) was removed from the equation for the prediction of Vocational Identity Measure (VIM), the outcomes were surprisingly similar to the outcomes with the original model. The findings are displayed in

Table 7. Comparisons of Model 2 for the Detection of Religious/Spiritual Suppression Variables in the Hierarchical Regression of Career Development Phenomenon.

	Vocational Identity (VIM)–Model 2 Comparisons
	Model 2a			Model 2b
	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Gender	−0.601	1.334	−0.017	−0.519	1.335	−0.015
PC	5.051	0.398	0.609 **	5.003	0.398	0.603 **
SC	−0.780	0.293	−0.122 *	−0.799	0.293	−0.125 *
RWB@	2.665	1.891	0.082	1.241	1.609	0.038
EWB	0.574	0.114	0.269 **	0.563	0.114	0.264 **
IRO@	−3.789	2.660	−0.83	−−	−−	−−
ERO	0.265	0.144	0.072	0.209	0.139	0.056
QS	−0.031	0.054	−0.029	−0.030	0.054	−0.028
EXM	0.105	0.113	0.041	0.074	0.111	0.029
COM	0.077	0.95	0.038	0.070	0.095	0.034
TEN	−0.144	0.073	−0.081 *	−0.125	0.072	−0.071
EXP	−0.245	0.094	−0.119 *	−0.202	0.089	−0.098 *
CHAN	−0.009	0.073	0.006	−0.014	0.071	−0.010
RA	0.023	0.077	0.014	0.024	0.077	0.014
F	33.572			35.865
Sig.	<0.001			<0.001
R2	0.630			0.627
R2 change	0.630			0.627
N = 290
	Career Commitment (VECS)–Model 2 Comparisons
	Model 2a			Model 2b
	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Gender	2.289	1.750	0.063	1.738	1.807	0.047
PC	−4.092	0.523	−0.473 **	−3.789	0.537	−0.438 **
SC	0.889	0.384	0.133 *	1.155	0.393	0.173 *
RWB@	−11.307	2.482	−0.334 **	−−	−−	−−
EWB	−0.162	0.150	−0.073	0.112	0.142	0.050
IRO@	−0.545	3.491	−0.011	−8.946	3.068	−0.188 *
ERO	−0.221	0.189	−0.057	−0.159	0.195	−0.041
QS	−0.078	0.071	−0.070	−0.076	0.073	−0.067
EXM	0.147	0.149	0.055	0.136	0.154	0.051
COM	0.072	0.125	0.033	0.056	0.130	0.026
TEN	−0.174	0.096	−0.094	−0.195	0.099	−0.105
EXP	−0.019	0.123	−0.009	−0.026	0.127	−0.012
CHAN	0.184	0.096	0.122	0.214	0.099	0.142 *
RA	0.338	0.101	0.194 **	0.302	0.105	0.174 *
F	13.984			12.567
Sig.	<0.001			<0.001
R2	0.415			0.371
R2 change	0.414			0.370
N = 290

Note. VIM = Vocational Identity Measure; VECS = Vocational Exploration and Commitment Scale; PC = Presence of Calling; SC = Searching for a Calling, RWB^@ = transformed Religious Well-Being; EWB = Existential Well-Being; IRO^@ = transformed Intrinsic Religious Orientation; ERO = Extrinsic Religious Orientation; QS = Quest Scale (Batson’s); EXM = Existential Motives; COM = Complexity; TEN = Tentativeness; EXP = Exploration; CHAN = Change; RA = Religious Angst; B = unstandardized beta coefficient; SE B = unstandardized beta coefficient standard error; β = standardized beta coefficient; * = p ≤ 0.05, ** = p ≤ 0.001; and Model 2a = original model with possible suppressor variable; Model 2b = model without possible suppressor variable.

. Model 1s were not included in the table because the R/S variables were only introduced in Model 2 along with gender in the previous hierarchical regression procedures (see Table 5).

As for the results, there was no substantial difference in explained variance of R² = 0.630 in the original model relative to R² = 0.627 in the alternative model; both would be considered 63%. The standardized beta weights for each predictor between the original and alternative were also very close in value. When comparing Model 2a (the original equation) to Model 2b (the alternative equation), the findings revealed 10 decreases counting gender, two increases, and one no-change with the absence of IRO. Yet, the largest decrease was only 0.05. Regarding emergent predictors, no extra predictors materialized. The only noticeable change was in the quest religiosity predictors. Tentativeness (TEN) dropped out as a predictor in the alternative equation (Model 2b). Collectively, these outcomes point to IRO not functioning as a suppressor variable.

When religious well-being (RWB) was removed from the equation for the prediction of career commitment (VECS), there were noteworthy alterations. The explained variance decreased; there were slight changes in the variables’ beta weight; and one extra predictor emerged with the absence of RWB. For the original equation R² was 0.415, while R² was 0.370 in the alternative equation. This is a 4.4% reduction in explained variance. When comparing standardized beta weights from Model 2a to Model 2b, eight counting gender decreased, while five increased. Yet, the largest decrease was also only 0.04; the largest increase was 0.18 with intrinsic religious orientation (IRO). Regarding emergent predictors, there was one extra predictor and one switch. Change (CHAN) surfaced as a positive predictor to career commitment adding to the number of quest religiosity variables present in the alternative predictive model (Model 2b). Further, IRO emerged as a positive predictor of career commitment like RWB in the original model (Model 2a). It is important to remember that both, IRO and RWB, were transformed variables, the direction of the interpretation is reversed. Also, positive predictors of VECS relate to lower career commitment. It appears that with or without RWB in the equation, the predictive model for career commitment in this study includes an unexpected R/S variable predicting less vocational attachment. Collectively, these outcomes point to RWB functioning as a suppressor variable, one that enhances the “effects of other variables in the set of [predictor variables]” (Tabachnick and Fidell 2019, p. 133).

4. Discussion

Vocation, according to Cahalan (2017), is a “dynamic response to who we are, how we live, and what we give our lives to” (p. 31). Her presumption articulates a key premise undergirding the present study. The spiritual self, one of the aspects in religious career decision-makers’ identity, associates with their career development. To verify this notion, a sample of religious sophomores in a career exploration course was garnered to discover salient religious and spiritual predictors of adaptive vocational development using a multidimensional operationalization of religion/spirituality (R/S). Such outcomes have the potential to equip career counselors with creative interventions for their clients of faith. Important aspects of our findings, including implications and applications, merit further discussion.

4.1. Religious/Spiritual Predictors of Vocational Identity

Considered a core component of a person’s self-concept and a necessity for career success (i.e., employment), vocational identity (VI) is the conscious mindfulness of career interests and pursuits (Hirschi 2011; Skorikov and Vondracek 2011). Its developmental goal is a high level of clarity. In other words, an individual has self-selected vocational preferences creating a robust, positive, and adaptable occupational identity (Holland et al. 1980).

In the present study, two predictive models for the VI of our religious participants were discovered. Seven different R/S predictors emerged between the models. Two variables in religious calling surfaced (PC and SC), one in spiritual well-being (EWB), and four in religious motivation (CHAN, RA, EXP, TEN). Specifically, VI as measured by the Vocational Identity Scale (VIS) in the My Vocational Situation (MVS; Holland et al. 1980) was predicted by the presence of a calling to a career (+PC), a high level of life satisfaction (+EWB; existential well-being), little need to search for a calling (-SC), a low level of willingness to evaluate and modify present day religious beliefs (-CHAN; change in the Multidimensional Quest Orientation Scale [MQOS], Beck and Jessup 2004), and a low level of negative emotionality and isolation during a faith pilgrimage (-RA; religious angst in the MQOS). VI as measured via the Vocational Identity Measure (VIM; Gupta et al. 2015) was also predicted by the presence of a calling to a career (+PC), a high level of life satisfaction (+EWB), little need to search for a calling (-SC) or to analyze old and explore new R/S knowledge (-EXP), and a low level of doubt positivism (-TEN; tentativeness in the MQOS).

When analyzing the two predictive models, a few notable patterns become apparent. First, religious career decision-makers have a clear awareness of their career interests or a high clarity level when they have the perception of a transcendent summon to a career offering them a sense of purpose and prosocial motivation (+PC), along with a positive self-assessment, cognitive and emotional evaluations, of their present life experiences (+EWB) (Dik and Duffy 2009; Paloutzian and Ellison 1991). Second, their clarity level co-exists with a steadiness with their calling and a stability within their religious belief system. In other words, they are not searching for a calling (-SC); they also have little to no desire to explore new religious information or scrutinize and alter present religious convictions (-EXP and -CHAN); and they experience a low level of negative emotionality (-RA) and a low level of recognizable doubt and uncertainty in their faith experiences (-TEN) (Beck and Jessup 2004).

4.1.1. Implications

A few implications with the two predictive models of vocational identity (VI) materialized. First, there is a notable difference in explained variance between the models with the Vocational Identity Scale (VIS) and Vocational Identity Measure (VIM). The former explained 37.1% of the total variance, while the latter explained 63%. Rosenthal (2011) remarked higher percentages indicate stronger associative strength, which in turn make for better predictions. The Likert scale used in the VIM is possibly a superior response format relative to the true/false response format in the traditional VIS of Holland. Second, these findings also corroborate previous research with VI. Both Creed et al. (2020) and Hirschi and Herrmann (2012) indicated religious calling being positively related to VI. Green (2020), Creed et al. (2020), Garrison et al. (2017), and Duffy and Dik (2013) reported life satisfaction being positively associated with VI.

Third, while there is little research on the relationship between vocational development and quest religious orientation, the present study underscores its saliency in career psychology. Three of the four quest predictors of VI, exploration (EXP), change (CHAN), and tentativeness (TEN) assess openness to change (EXP and CHAN) and doubt positivism (TEN), two key elements in Batson’s (1976) definition of quest religiosity. Yet, the three variables along with religious angst (RA) were negative predictors. Apparently, the saliency of quest religiosity with vocational identity is at a lower level for association. This could mean the participants are still open to change, possess difficult religious questions because of doubts and uncertainties in life, and experience religious angst. However, their openness is not at a high level; challenging inquiries and doubts, and the awareness of uncertainty do not distract them; and any uncomfortable negative emotions do not preoccupy their cognitive and emotional functioning.

4.1.2. Applications

Practically speaking, there are several applications germane to these findings. First, in a discussion on vocational identity (VI), career counselors can assess their faith-based clients on calling, life-satisfaction, and quest religiosity. The four items from the Brief Calling Scale (BCS; Dik et al. 2012), the ten items of the Existential Well-being Scale (EWB; Paloutzian and Ellison 1991), and the twelve items of the Quest Scale (QS; Batson 1976) are suggested. For brevity purposes, the four MQOS subscales (i.e., EXP, CHAN, TEN, and RA with 31 items) were not advised. Yet, the recommended compendium (i.e., 26 items) can be an efficient means to understand certain aspects of the clients’ R/S and could be administered at an intake or anytime during the therapeutic journey.

Further, scoring is straight-forward, and the results can be easily interpreted. The BCS divides into the presence of a calling (PC) and searching for a calling (SC), with scores ranging from 2 to 10 for each subscale. Higher or lower scores indicate the presence or absence of a calling. The ten questions in the EWB are split in half between being worded in a straight-forward manner and a reverse or negative direction with scores ranging from 10 to 60. Again, higher (i.e., 50–60) or lower (i.e., 10–20) scores point to more or less life-satisfaction. Finally, the twelve items of the QS easily divide into three sections comprising quest religiosity–responsiveness to life challenges, doubt positivism, and openness to religious information (Batson et al. 1993). Scores for each component range from 4–36. Higher or lower scores underscore a higher or lower level of responsiveness, doubt positivism, and openness.

Second, following the assessment, a discussion about the results can ensue. The scores reveal a portion of clients’ overall spiritual self relative to their clarity level on career interests. Religious calling outcomes point to the perception of a transcendent summon to a career, an influence in their life that originates beyond the self and provides a sense of purpose, direction, and motivation (Duffy and Dik 2013). Calling is a form of self-transcendence, an awareness and engagement with something larger than oneself. To be self-transcendent means a person has the capacity to soar above oneself (e.g., present-time preferences, needs, etc.) and connect with or respond to the transcendent being (e.g., God) and/or the external world (Elkady 2019). How clients respond to the calling depends on their abilities, personality, and experiences in life (Worth and Smith 2021).

Counselors can inquire about clients’ perception of the summon and their experience with it. Is a calling something they know exists, something possessed or held (high PC score), or is it something they are seeking, a pursuit that is underway (high SC)? If it is present, can they articulate or describe what the call is? How long have they been aware of it? How does it relate to their career interests? Do they consider the calling as a means to integrate their faith and work (Dik et al. 2021)? If it is not present, how do they know? What has the pursuit or search been like? Does it hamper their understanding of career interests and selections? Would they like to have assistance in developing more clarity with a calling (see Appendix A)?

Existential well-being (EWB) outcomes underscore clients’ current level of satisfaction with life. The items in the EWB divide evenly between cognitive (e.g., meaningfulness of life) and emotional (e.g., enjoyment with life) appraisals. The questions lead clients to make conscious judgments, a global assessment about how they are experiencing life (Diener et al. 2002; Hartung et al. 2021). For instance, the scores (10–60) reveal their detection of purpose, meaning, positivity, future anticipations, contentment, conflictual experiences, direction in life, etc. (Paloutzian and Ellison 1991).

Counselors can inquire about clients’ global appraisal of their present-time existence. Is there a high level of life satisfaction (high EWB; scores between 50 and 60)? Do they possess a sense of meaning in life? Can they articulate what they believe their purpose for being on earth is at this time in history? Is their future settled with career ideas and relationships? Can they say they are fulfilled and satisfied with family, friends, and health? Or is there a low level of life satisfaction (low EWB; scores between 10 and 20)? Are there specific stressors weighing them down? Are their perceptions of future things such as a vocation and relationships fuzzy and unclear? Is their health or family members’ physical state troublesome? Do political issues depress them? Are effects of bias, such as sexism, racism, genderism, and weightism discouraging? Would they like to take time in the session to work through these struggles?

Quest Scale (QS) outcomes point to clients’ religion as a quest; this approach entails an engagement with questions concerning their R/S and resistance to fixed religious limits (Batson et al. 1993). Counselors need to direct their attention to scores in the QS for doubt positivism and openness. The former centers on being honest with doubts or uncertainties, and the latter addresses the willingness to engage new religious knowledge or being self-critical with the currently held belief system.

Although the predictive models for vocational identity in this study anticipate low scores for doubt positivism and openness, several inquiries can be addressed. For instance, how do clients assess their religious doubts? Are they welcomed or upsetting? Are there any specific questions about their current convictions and practices (see Appendix B)? Have they contemplated changes in certain beliefs? Are the tweaks minor or major in nature? What has prompted the possible alterations? Has there been a specific source of information (e.g., a recently read book) or a trusted person or persons (e.g., a religious mentor) who they have confided in? Or have they decided to not to do anything specific with the questions and have no plans to make any present time amendments? Are clients comfortable with that decision? Will this comfortability sustain them over time and not haunt or nag at their conscience?

Third, following the discussion, a few exercises are suggested to assist faith-based clients. For those who are unsure or lacking a calling/mission (i.e., high SC values), counselors can utilize the Calling/Mission Worksheet (see Appendix A). The exercise is designed for reflection, to help undergraduates contemplate life experiences, weave their encounters, events, interpretations, and preferences together, and then to help them articulate an initial iteration of a calling and mission. It cannot give clients a calling or mission; it is simply a discovery tool. As can be seen on the worksheet, the terms calling and mission are distinguished. Clients are directed to self-reflect on seven questions and finish with the task of crafting a possible calling and mission statement. An example of a calling/mission statement is also provided.

For clients with low EWB scores (i.e., 10–20), counselors can employ the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) created by Cohen et al. (1983). It is a 14-item instrument assessing the level of stress created by life circumstances in clients’ life. The PSS identifies stressors related to unexpected and uncontrollable circumstances, low confidence, and irritations. If clients mention low life satisfaction due to the effects of past trauma experiences, the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) can be employed to ascertain the kinds of traumatic events that occurred (Anda and Felitti 2003). The location of the kind of trauma (i.e., abuse, neglect, or household dysfunction) can direct therapists toward a more specific treatment plan.

For clients with high QS scores in openness and doubt positivism, counselors can direct them to Appendix B. This exercise utilizes the Nicene Creed (NC), an ancient creed dating back to the fourth century. The NC comprises essential beliefs within the Christian faith and is generally accepted by Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodoxies (Zondervan Academic Blog 2018). The exercise is designed to stimulate discovery, not a theological debate. Clients can potentially identify troublesome beliefs, pinpoint specific questions/hesitations, and become more prepared for an in-depth discussion with a religious mentor on the topic. Career counselors benefit as well. This exercise allows them to engage religious clients instead of ignoring these kinds of topics/issues; they can also determine the magnitude of troublesome beliefs. Problematic convictions are calculated by counting the number of high angst levels (i.e., 4–5). A total equaling ≥ 9 points to significant concerns with the Christian faith. Further, the number of bothersome convictions might be hindering clients’ clarity level in VI and warrant a referral to a R/S mentor.

4.2. Religious/Spiritual Predictors of Career Commitment

In the career developmental journey, Blustein et al. (1989) marked career commitment as a position beyond career decidedness. This point on the path has several nuances distinguishing it. Both career decidedness and commitment include a sense of certainty with garnered vocational options or preferences. Yet, the latter construct also entails self-confidence, positivism about the prospects with the occupations, and an awareness of potential obstacles associated with the vocations.

In the present study, a predictive model for the career commitment of religious undergraduates containing four different R/S predictors (-PC, +SC, +RWB, and +RA) was discovered. Two variables in religious calling (PC & SC) surfaced, one in religious motivation (RA), and one in spiritual well-being (RWB). Specifically, a high level of career commitment as assessed by the Vocational Exploration and Commitment Scale (VECS; Blustein et al. 1989) was predicted by the presence of a calling to a career (-PC), a low desire to search for a calling (+SC), a low level of negative emotionality and isolation during the faith journey (+RA; religious angst), and a low level of satisfaction with God (+RWB; religious well-being).

In other words, religious career decision-makers have a higher level of commitment to career options when they possess a perception of a transcendent summon to the occupations offering them purpose and motivation (-PC) (Dik and Duffy 2009). This firm attachment to occupational preferences co-exists with a steadiness with their calling and tranquil religious experiences. In other words, they are not pursuing a calling (+SC) and not experiencing a high level of religious angst (e.g., anxiety, doubt, isolation, loneliness, etc.) (+RA) in their faith pilgrimage. Yet, a high career commitment level also coincides with a low satisfaction in their relationship with God (+RWB) (Beck and Jessup 2004).

4.2.1. Implications

Several implications surfaced relative to the predictive model of career commitment. First, the explained variance in our model is notable; 41.5% of the total variance with VECS is explicated by the four predictors (-PC, +SC, +RWB, and +RA). This large percentage also marks strong associative strength and predictive capabilities of the emergent variables (Rosenthal 2011). Second, some of the obtained predictors substantiate previous research. Duffy and Dik (2013) reported career commitment positively related to religious calling. Hirschi and Herrmann (2012) indicated career exploration, an aspect of the VECS (Blustein et al. 1989), as positively related to calling.

Third, unexpectedly low religious satisfaction (+RWB) emerged as a predictor, with low levels of perceived divine care, support, love, interest, engagement, and connection correlated with higher levels of commitment to vocational preferences. This poses an interesting and unexpected contrast. The means for RWB and VECS in the descriptive statistics of this study show the sample having high levels of religious satisfaction and career commitment, yet the constructs are inversely related in our predictive model. In Table 1, the RWB averages were reported as 52.98 and 52.73 for male and female participants, respectively. According to Paloutzian and Ellison (1991), this study’s averages for RWB lie within the range (i.e., 50–60) of their normative sample marking a robust God-satisfaction level. Further, the means for the VECS in this study were 49.70 for men and 51.28 for women, while the means reported by Blustein et al. (1989) in their derivation sample were 62.71 for males and 63.69 for females. Because high VECS scores reflect low career commitment, an independent samples t-test revealed the means in the study by Blustein et al. as higher (lower commitment), at a level of significance of p < 0.01, than the averages in Table 1 of the present study.

The inverse relationship between VECS and RWB can be explained in part by the suppressive effects of RWB (see Table 7). As was discussed previously, the presence of RWB suppressed variance irrelevant to the prediction of career commitment (Tabachnick and Fidell 2019). The absence of RWB in the alternative equation (Model 2b) resulted in less explained variance, an extra quest religiosity variable, and intrinsic religious orientation (IRO) as a positive predictor. The switching of IRO for RWB is noteworthy. IRO measures people’s internal fervent drive to be religious; it assesses the intensity of their desire to live out what they religiously believe (Gorsuch and McPherson 1989). With or without RWB in the equation, the predictive model for career commitment (VECS) in this study entailed an unexpected R/S variable forecasting less occupational attachment. An additional interpretation is needed for this surprising contrast.

Hence, it is also probable that the inverse relationship between VECS and RWB highlights the importance of religion in the daily lives of our participants; eighty-nine percent self-reported religion as ‘very important.’ Experiencing God’s love, care, and support may be preeminent, permeating every aspect of self. The divine relationship could be a more important focus or a higher priority in their career planning. In other words, a hierarchy may have been uncovered. Participants’ spiritual self is conceivably ranked higher than their vocational self (i.e., career commitment). In the context of predicting career commitment, high religious satisfaction potentially anticipates low vocational attachment. Therefore, it may be prudent for career counselors to double check religious undergraduates’ scores on career commitment relative to the normative sample of Blustein et al. (1989). Clients of faith might still have a robust level of vocational attachment underlining an importance for having an occupational fit in their future.

Fourth, the emergence of a low level of religious angst (+RA) in this predictive model draws attention to the importance of R/S serenity for career commitment. This finding suggests that the participants probably struggle with doubts, loneliness, anxiety, and abandonment. However, these RA experiences in a spiritual journey are not burdensome or distracting to their religious cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning. Higher levels of RA would most likely reduce attachment to occupational preferences. Conceivably, there would be a corrosion of participants’ certainty, self-confidence, and positivism about the future with their preferred vocations. In addition, there might be the frustration of their discernment process regarding real-life obstacles connected to career options (Blustein et al. 1989).

4.2.2. Applications

As for real-life applications of the predictive model of career commitment, several suggestions can be proffered. First, in a conversation about religious clients’ career commitment, an assessment can be made of their religious calling, religious well-being, and religious angst. A brief, efficient, and economical means to accomplish this is to create a compilation using the four questions from the Brief Calling Scale (BCS; Dik et al. 2012), the 10 items in the Religious Well-Being scale (RWB; Paloutzian and Ellison 1991), and the six inquiries in the Religious Angst scale (RA; from the MQOS; Beck and Jessup 2004). The assemblage can fit on one page; it will provide a swift appraisal of a portion of the spiritual identity of religious career decision-makers at the present time.

The 20 questions are easily scored and interpreted for use in a session. Total scores for the scales, presence of (PC), and searching for a calling (SC) range 2–10; there is no reversing of values of answers. The total score for the ten items for RWB ranges from 10–60; there are six questions worded in a positive direction and the remaining four are in a negative direction. As for the RA, the range for the total score is 6–42; there is no reversing of answer values. Interpretation for the four scales is centered around the total score, the higher the total, the “more” of the construct. For instance, RWB totals between 10 and 20 are considered low and totals between 50 and 60 are regarded as high (Paloutzian and Ellison 1991).

Second, following the assessments, a discussion on the outcomes of the three measures can transpire. For a high total score with PC, counselors can wonder with clients by asking, when did the calling come into focus? Are clients able to articulate the call and explain how it fits with the preferred vocations that they have attached to? How has the call helped them develop certainty and confidence about their chosen careers? What are the connections between their calling and excitement about the prospects with the occupations? How does the calling prepare them for some of their researched obstacles connected to the preferred vocations? For a high total score with SC, therapists can inquire about the nature of the search. Has the pursuit been frustrating or non-problematic for them? Has the search impeded the attachment to career options? Clients could also be directed to Appendix A if they wanted assistance in recognizing or articulating their call.

Pertaining to high RA scores, counselors can probe into what level of anxiety, despair, and loneliness clients are experiencing, and direct a discussion on how these levels are affecting career commitment. Career counselors can inquire about the kinds of negative religious encounters at the present time. Are the experiences due to questions about doctrine, or resulting from challenging the religious status quo in their families or at their local church? Further, a treatment plan can be crafted for really high levels of fear, loneliness, and abandonment. Last, with very low RWB scores, career counselors can check the possible source for the dissatisfaction. For instance, is it about God being impersonal, uninterested in them, or apparently unloving in their faith pilgrimage? Is it about unanswered prayers? Or possibly, is the low score revealing that a relationship with God is unimportant at the present time? Is this problematic or not?

Third, another exercise is suggested to help verify the attachment that clients have with their preferred occupations. In Appendix C, clients are directed to list the top five preferences at the present time and analyze each vocation with emotions using Puffer’s (2015) State Affect Checklist (SAC). Emotions are compelling forces in religious people’s lives, offering a dynamic source of information when harnessed. Allender and Longman (2015) remarked that emotions in general reveal the “inner working of people’s soul” and present “a glimpse of the character of God” in their life (pp. xvi, xix). Further, Greenberg (2011) mentioned that feelings can function as a “therapeutic compass guiding the client and therapist as to what is important to the client and what needs are being met (or not met)” (p. 37). Hence, religious career decision-makers can benefit from and effectively utilize the emotional information related to their occupational selections.

The SAC contains 18 emotional words, eleven negative and seven positive affects derived from both the vocational and emotion science literature. Participants are directed to circle as many emotional words that are elicited when reflecting on each career; no limit is recommended. The compendium of feelings is a checklist prompting clients to make one of two categorical decisions, a ‘yes’ for the word is indicated by circling it and a ‘no’ means the word is not circled (Rosenthal and Rosnow 2008). Further, when the exercise is completed, counselors can direct their clients to explain/discuss the reasons associated with the circled words relative to their commitment to the occupations. The therapist can also include questions around clients’ certainty with the selected occupations, self-confidence about the choices, positivism about the prospects with each career, and awareness of possible future obstacles related to the pursuit of each vocation. For instance, do the circled affective words relate to certainty, self-confidence, positivism, etc., and how so?

4.3. Religious/Spiritual Predictors of Career Indecision

The study of career indecision lends itself to practical therapeutic interventions. When career counselors identify specific barriers or hindrances to decision-making, they quickly can direct attention to appropriate treatments for their clients (Xu 2020). The four specific barriers of Chartrand et al. (1997) were analyzed in this study. Three predictive models emerged with four different R/S variables and gender. Among the faith constructs, there was one variable from religious calling (presence of a calling; PC), one from spiritual well-being (existential well-being; EWB), and two from religious motivation (existential motive; EXM and exploration; EXP).

Specifically, a high need level for career information (CI) was predicted by the absence of a religious calling (-PC). A high level of career choice anxiety (CA) was associated with the absence of a religious calling (-PC), a low level of life satisfaction (-EWB), and a low level of desire to pursue existential purpose or meaning in life (-EXM). Last, a high level of generalized indecisiveness is related to the absence of a religious calling (-PC), a low level of life satisfaction (-EWB), a low level of effort to investigate new or old religious knowledge such as doctrine and behavior (-EXP), and by being a female (+gender).

Put another way, several R/S variables assist religious career decision-makers in the avoidance of indecision. First, they have little need for career information (CI) when guided by the perception of a transcendent summon to a career offering purpose and motivation to be prosocial (+PC) (Dik and Duffy 2009). Second, religious undergraduates have low career choice anxiety (CA) when they possess the perception of a transcendent summon to a career providing purpose and an impetus to be prosocial (+PC), have positive cognitive and affective appraisals of present life circumstances (+EWB), and a high level of drive to discover existential purpose and meaning in their lives (+EXM) (Beck and Jessup 2004; Dik and Duffy 2009; Paloutzian and Ellison 1991). Third, religious college students have low generalized indecisiveness when they have a perception of a transcendent summon to a career empowering them with purpose and prosocial enthusiasm (+PC), positive self-appraisals of their present life conditions (+EWB), a high level of effort to search for new religious information and evaluate their current religious knowledge (+EXP), and by not being a female (-gender) (Beck and Jessup 2004; Dik and Duffy 2009; Paloutzian and Ellison 1991).

4.3.1. Implications

There are a few implications of these findings. First, there is a wide variation in the proportion of explained variance among the three predictive models. The emotional barriers (i.e., career choice anxiety, generalized indecisiveness) to career decision-making had predictors that explained more variance than the informational barrier (i.e., need for career information). For the emotional barriers, the three predictors (-PC, -EWB, and -EXM) for career choice anxiety (CA) explained 35.4% of the variance; the four predictors (-PC, -EWB, -EXP, and +gender) for generalized indecisiveness (GI) explained 24.2%; while the one predictor (-PC) for the need for career information (CI) explained only 13.2%. This study’s operationalization of R/S (i.e., religious calling, spiritual well-being, and religious motivation) may possibly have been a reason for the variation in percentages. CA and GI worked well with this study’s operationalization, while informational barriers (i.e., CI and need for self-knowledge [SK]) may respond to different combinations of R/S constructs, such as external, introjected, and identified religious motivation assessed on the Religious Internalization Scale (RIS; Hardy et al. 2020).

Second, these findings corroborate with previous research. Duffy and Sedlack (2007) indicated career indecision was negatively associated with religious calling. Parola and Marcionetti (2021), along with Lee et al. (2022) reported that career indecision was negatively correlated to life satisfaction.

Third, quest religiosity emerged again as a salient predictor for the career development of religious undergraduates. With EXM as a predictor, all three facets in Batson’s (1976) model of quest religious motivation (i.e., responsiveness, doubt positivism, and openness) became predictors in this study. Responsiveness (i.e., EXM) predicted career choice anxiety (CA); doubt positivism (i.e., TEN) predicted vocational identity (i.e., VIM); and openness (i.e., EXP and CHAN) also predicted vocational identity (i.e., VIM and VIS).

Furthermore, the levels of existential motives (EXM) and exploration (EXP) in the prediction of career indecision were higher relative to the quest predictors for vocational identity and career commitment. It appears that responsiveness to complex existential struggles (EXM) and an openness to change (EXP) enhance the decision-making process. For EXM, candid and honest responses to real-life difficulties relative to faith or life in general may not be distractive. It could be a habit that assists religious undergraduates in problem-solving and helps them minimize their anxiety level. Instead of wasting time and energy on the suppression of uncomfortable information, they would have more mental space to prepare a response to problems related to their selected careers, such as gender bias in a proposed work-environment or a lack of career-related parental support. For EXP, an openness to change, such as exploring new religious information or being self-critical of old knowledge, could develop and strengthen a growth mindset. Hence, this study’s participants may not be closed to learning new material related to a vocational preference or new skills required for a career option, which in turn may empower them to be more tolerant of uncertainty and less indecisive (Arbona et al. 2021).

Fourth, gender surfaced as a predictor for only one of the career developmental constructs. Because of the plethora of research on gender effects in career psychology, it was anticipated to be a more consistent predictor. Yet, some constructs may not evidence gender distinctions. Duffy et al. (2015) found no gender differences with work volition. Puffer (1998, 2011) reported no gender distinctions with vocational identity (i.e., VIS) or with two vocational personalities (i.e., Holland’s enterprising and conventional). In the present study, there were no gender differences among the means of career commitment (i.e., VECS).

However, the prediction of generalized indecisiveness (GI) included gender as a positive predictor. Female participants had higher GI than males, suggesting that they are more likely to be indecisive. Female religious career decision-makers may be affected by gender socialization for career choices and lower self-efficacy (e.g., influences from parents, teachers, and coaches), and may be anticipating negative gender effects in future workplace experiences (i.e., microaggressions, sexual harassment, work promotion bias, etc.) due to exposure to new stories covering such trends (IResearchNet 2022; Kim et al. 2020; Kuhn and Wolter 2022; Schultheiss 2020; Zhang et al. 2021).

4.3.2. Applications

Practically speaking, several applications relevant to these findings from the three predictive models can be offered. First, in a consultation about religious clients’ career indecision, it may be appropriate to assess their religious calling using the Brief Calling Scale (BCS; Dik et al. 2012), their life satisfaction utilizing the Existential Well-being Scale (EWB; Paloutzian and Ellison 1991), and their level of drive to find existential meaning and purpose along with the level of need to explore new and old religious information by including the Existential Motive (EXM) and Exploration (EXP) scales (from the Multidimensional Quest Orientation Scale [MQOS; Beck and Jessup 2004]). This collection of questions (i.e., 24 items) can offer a rapid assessment of a portion of clients’ R/S identity at the present time; this appraisal can also take place during an intake or anytime in the therapeutic journey. As mentioned previously, scoring is straightforward. The scores for the BSC range 2–10; outcomes with the EWB range 10–60, and range of scores from the EXM are 5–35 and from the EXP are 6–42. Again, the higher the score, the “more” of the construct is evident.

After the assessments, it is advised that an engagement with discussion questions relative to the specific barrier creating career indecision take place. For religious clients with a need for more career information, it can be assumed based on this study’s findings that these career decision-makers do not have a religious calling in place (-PC). Most likely they are still searching for a calling (high level of SC) while struggling with information deficits. It is a curious combination; there is an absence or a vague perception of a transcendent summon that is not providing purpose and motivation, while simultaneously struggling with a lack of career facts or inconsistent information due to internal and/or external conflicts (Arbona et al. 2021; Gati and Saka 2001). Hence, career counselors can inquire about how the experience of searching for a calling has been. Are they burdened and confused, or are they okay with the ambiguity and riding it out? How does searching for a calling influence the obtainment of vocational knowledge about their options? What have been their efforts to secure or recognize a calling? Would they like some assistance in that recognition or clarification process? Appendix A can possibly be offered as a helpful exercise.

For spiritually oriented clients with a high level of career choice anxiety, it can be presumed that they would not have a calling (-PC), are reporting low life satisfaction (-EWB), and have a low level of motivation to find existential purpose and meaning (-EXM), while grappling with high anxiety about making career choices. This too is an uneasy situation; a calling is either vague or absent; life circumstances have been uncontrollable, uncomfortable, disappointing, and filled with annoyances; and the desire to pursue purpose and meaning in life is low, while currently grappling with nervousness, worry, restlessness, and irritability related to occupational choices (Arbona et al. 2021). Consequently, career therapists can engage their religious clients by starting with the aforementioned discussion inquiries about the undergraduates’ search for a calling (-PC). Then, the counselor can proceed to clients’ conscious appraisals of life circumstances (-EWB). Are there specific stressors impeding decision-making? Is poor health prominent? Are the effects of some kinds of bias or problematic relationships weighing on them? Would an administration of the Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen et al. 1983) be helpful in identifying specific struggles relative to decision-making? Furthermore, can an administration of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7; Spitzer et al. 2006) help in screening for the level of anxiety experienced by clients, and prompt a more specific treatment plan for any high levels of reported anxiety? Last, career therapists can finish this discussion with questions related to clients’ low drive to pursue existential purpose (-EXM). Specific queries can include: how has their low devotion to meaning making impacted career choices? Have they found themselves being less abstract and philosophical, and more concrete and illogical in their religious journey? Has this cognitive approach distracted in choosing vocations? How so?

For religious career decision-makers with a high level of generalized indecisiveness, it can be assumed that they do not possess a clear perception of a call (-PC), are experiencing low levels of satisfaction with life (-EWB), have a low drive to explore new religious information or to scrutinize familiar doctrinal positions (-EXP), and are female (+gender). Subsequently, counselors can start with the aforementioned discussion queries about the religious career decision-makers search for a calling (-PC) and their conscious evaluations of their life conditions (-EWB). Afterwards, the direction of the conversation can shift to the clients’ low drive efforts to explore and evaluate new and old religious knowledge (-EXP). How has a lack of searching for religious truth impacted their career decision-making? Has their religious faith become stagnate? How has the stagnation affected career choices? Has the non-pursuit of religious teaching enhanced their frustration and slowness with career decision-making? Would an administration of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (IUS-12; Carleton et al. 2007) to appraise clients’ negative reactions to unpredictability and uncertainty assist (Arbona et al. 2021)? Might a high level of intolerance of uncertainty be generating more fear of the unknown? How can a tolerance of ambiguity and the unpredictable be encouraged?

Last, counselors can address ‘being a female’ related to a high level of indecisiveness. Specific questions can include: can clients recognize gender socialization in their family of origin? Did their caregivers treat boys and girls differently? Did they hear caregivers regulate certain careers that are only for girls and only for boys? Did their role-models (e.g., maternal and paternal employment) and educational textbooks display sex-typed careers and leadership? Were STEM majors for college not promoted for them? Would they say their career decision self-efficacy (i.e., their ability to perform well in a wide variety of decision-making tasks) was low? Would an administration of the Career Decision Self-Efficacy–Short Form (CDSE-SF; Betz et al. 1996) assist clients to recognize what elements in decision-making are problematic? Further, have they heard reports about negative workplace experiences for women (e.g., work promotion bias, sexual harassment, etc.) (IResearchNet 2022; Schultheiss 2020)? How did they react to the stories? Are these reports discouraging their decision-making? What do they need to learn to cope with such possible realities? Could testimonies of women who have successfully dealt with such hinderance in the workplace empower them with ideas (e.g., proactive strategies) for managing probable future inequalities? For instance, how might female undergraduates address pay gaps between male and female employees, or advocate for work-life balance for all employees when they enter the work world (Marchant 2021)?

4.4. Limitations and Future Research

The present study was not without limitations. First, the utilization of regression procedures precludes cause and effect deductions. Second, recruitment of participants over the course of six years was constrained by the demographic dimensions (i.e., gender–few males, ethnicity–few students of color; majors–low variety) of the student population enrolled in the career exploration seminar. Generalizations derived from this study’s outcomes are limited to populations with similar traits of this sample. Third, the percentages of explained variance were restricted for two career indecision variables (i.e., the need for career information and the need for self-knowledge). Hence, one multidimensional operationalization of R/S is most likely not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach with all career developmental variables. Other creative multidimensional permutations of R/S constructs need development to respond to the diverse beliefs and practices across and within different faith traditions (Ives and Kidwell 2019). Fourth, the R/S emphasis in this investigation was Protestant Christian. Other nuanced religious/spiritual-related demographic questions along with different monotheistic measures and interpretative emphases can extend investigations into other Christian denominations and religious faiths. Last, assessment of gender-related issues within the context of career development for this population was limited. Other demographic questions (e.g., frequency of microaggressions) and measurements (e.g., sexism) can expand researchers’ understanding of the specifics of participants’ gender awareness and negative encounters that are gender related.

These limits notwithstanding, the importance of understanding the relationship between R/S and career development variables with an eye on gender must proceed as a research priority. Future studies can replicate the present investigation with the adoption of the recommended adjustments. For instance, the Duke Religion Index (DUREL; Koenig and Büssing 2010) can be added to the demographic questions to enhance researchers’ knowledge about participants’ R/S practices. Because the DUREL assesses participants’ engagement in public and private religious actions, it can also be altered and made applicable to other Christian denominations (e.g., Catholic, Orthodox) and other monotheistic religions (e.g., Islamic, Judaic). For example, ‘church’ could be switched to ‘mass’ or ‘mosque’, and ‘Bible’ could be exchanged with ‘Torah’ (Koenig and Büssing 2010).

Sexism measures such as the Experiences with Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (EASI; Salomon et al. 2020) and the Experiences with Benevolent Sexism Scale (EBSS; Oswald et al. 2019) would expand awareness of participants’ “lived-world experiences” (Biggerstaff 2012). Furthermore, as was the case with vocational identity in this study, future investigations could include another career indecision measure such as the Career Indecision Profile-Short (Xu and Tracey 2017) to expand the number of real-life barriers impeding R/S undergraduates’ career decision-making. In addition, other Christian R/S measures can be employed to diversify and create other batteries comprising a multidimensional operationalization. For instance, the Spiritual Assessment Inventory (SAI; Hall and Edwards 1996) examines participants’ awareness of daily interactive encounters with God. The Adjective Ratings of God (ARG; Gorsuch 1968) investigates people’s description of God revealing their perception (e.g., impersonal, warm, etc.) of the divine being to whom they have made an attachment. Last, if multidimensional operationalizations for monotheistic measures other than Christian were under consideration, the Katz–Francis Scale of Attitude toward Judaism (Francis and Katz 2007) or the Religiosity of Islam Scale (Jana-Masri and Priester 2007) would be viable additions.

5. Conclusions

Stolz-Loike (1997) considered spirituality as an “organizing principle for the way people function” (p. 152). In the present study, the predictive relationship between religious undergraduates’ spiritual self and their career development (i.e., vocational identity, career commitment, and career indecision) was investigated. A multidimensional operationalization of participants’ R/S (i.e., 13 variables) was employed. From seven hierarchical regression analyses that also checked gender effects, three salient and consistent predictors were discovered–religious calling, life satisfaction, and quest religious orientation. Suggestions for the creative application of the findings for use by career counselors were proffered. Collectively, these contributions add to the pursuit of understanding and engaging the “partnering relationship between humans and God” within the context of career development and career counseling (Turpin 2006, p. 23).