Determinants of Voluntary Association Participation and Volunteering: a Literature Review

Determinants of Voluntary Association Participation and Volunteering: A Literature Review

David Hortoti Smith

This article reviews the Attietican literature in social sciencefor the period 1975-1992 011 the detenuinalits ofvoliuiteer participatioii in prograiiis atid msociatioiis. It finds that i~ioststiidies arc too tiarro~vin the \zitids ofvaii- ables that they include and that qhnatoiypower is rediiced (1s a result. Such participatioii is sigriifcaritly greaterfor certaiii kinds of variables: cotitaxtiin1 (for exanipfe, siiiallcr coniniunity), social backgtaitnd (for exaniple, liiglier education), persoiiality (for ample, 111oi-eefficacyliriter- nal locus of control), arid attitde (for exaittple, niore groitp attractiveness) as well as sitiiational variables (for example, being ashed to join). Very few stitdies conibiiie nieasures ofcach type of variable. \Vhen several predictor rcalr~isarc iticltided, tnuch higher variance is accountedfol: Other social participation (political, iiims incdia, recreational, aiid so 011) is asso- ciatcd with volunteer participation. This associatioil coilfit7iis a gettern1 activity mdel that posits a cliisteririg of different types ofsociocitlturally approved discretioiiary activity.

The determinants of participation in voluntary associations have been of interest to sociologists and other social scientists for many decades (for example, Warner and Lunt, 1941). Such participation has an impact on the participant (Smith and Reddy, 1973) and on the larger society (Smith, 1973). From time to time, literature reviews have been done on the determinants of association participation (for example, Smith, 1975; Smith and Freedman, 1972; Tomeh, 1973). Enough years have passed to make worthwhile a review drawing on recent bibliographies (Layton, 1987; Pugliese, 1985) and the Citizen Partici- pation and Voluntary Action Abstracts published by the Association for

Note: 1 am grateful to anonymous referees and particularly the editor-in-chief for consttuc- tiw criticisms that have helped to make this a stronger article. Remaining errors are my o\\.n.

NoSPRoriT AmVOLUSTARY SECTOR QUARTERLY, vol. 23, no. 3, Fall 1991 0 Jossey-Bass Publlshers 243

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on August 4, 2016 244 Smith

Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action. The period cov- ered is roughly that from 1975 to 1992, and attention is given almost exclu- sively to American periodical materials. The subfield of inquiry reviewed here seeks to understand why people participate in volunteer programs and voluntary associations. The least ambitious way to approach the relevant results is to say that we seek the correlates of such participation. More ambitious is the terminology of determinants adopted here, which implies some causality in the data. Still more ambitious would be an attempt to construct a path model. Such an enterprise seems far beyond the current literature, and it is not attempted here. This review considers not only participation in voluntary associations but also volunteer work for nonprofit programs and organizations. I refer to the two together as volunteer participation. They seem qualitatively similar, and they have similar patterns of determinants when we examine social background variables in national sample surveys (Auslander and Litwin, 1988; Hodgkinson, Weitzman, Noga, and Gorski, 1992; Hodgkinson and Weitzrnan, 1986; Palisi and Korn, 1989; Vaillancourt and Payette, 1986). Both involve contributions of time hthout coercion or remuneration. However, volunteer work is generally public benefit activity, while association participation can be either public benefit or member benefit activity (Smith, 1993). The findings of past literature reviews just cited suggest that the determinants of volunteer participation are highly multivariate. To grasp the com- plexity involved, it is helpful to have some theoretical model that pulls the hypothesized determinants together in a meaningful way. One aim of this review is to present generalizations that might be useful to a scholar in this subfield of nonprofidvoluntary action research. Another aim is to inform leaders of volunteer programs and voluntary associations about findings that could be put to use in efforts to mobilize volunteers and members. This review is organized around five categories of determinants found in the literature (based partly on Allport, 1954, partly on Smith, Macaulay, and Associates, 1980). Subtheories drawn from such disciplines and subfields as community theory, organization theory, personality theory, dominant status theory, role theory attitude theory, cognitive theory, and symbolic interaction theory underlie the determinants used in this review. Constraints of space prevent me from elaborating on these relationships. These are the variable categories: Context refers to the environment of the individual, such as size of his or her community of residence and nature of the voluntary organization or group. Social background refers to standard social statuses and roles of importance, such as education and gender. Personality refers to general and enduring personal response tendencies, such as extraversion and assertiveness. Attitudes refers to more situation-specific response tendencies, such as liking volunteer work or a specific voluntary association. Finally, situatio-n refers to factors in one's immediate situation, such as being asked to join a group or program or one's definition of the situation.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on August 4, 2016 Voliiiitaiy Associatioii Pnrticipatioii aiid Voliiiiteeriiig 245

According to one underlying theory (Smith, 19831, the five categories of variables operate in concert, although most researchers in the period under review looked at only one or two categories of variables. Berger (1991) is an exception. After reviewing the various major types of variables, I will examine how the variables test some models in a brief section.

Contextual Variables Contextual variables are factors that characterize the environment of an individual. The purpose of this section of the review is to see whether context has an independent impact on volunteer participation in the review period. This is where community and regional influences, as well as organizational influences, come into play. Ideally, context should be measured independently of the individual (that is, not as an individual’s self-report), but sometimes valid contextual variables are from self-reports. Context has various subcategories. The two most salient here are territory and organizations. Perhaps the classic study of territory is by Bell and Force (19561, who found higher volunteer participation in higher-economic-status San Francisco neighborhoods when individual socioeconomic status (education, occupation, income) was controlled. Their study suggests that at least one contextual variable helps to shape individual volunteer participation with the individual-level variables controlled. An important cross-cultural study by Curtis, Grabb, and Baer (1992) that used combined data for fifteen industrialized nations showed more participation in voluntary associations in smaller, more rural communities. This is very convincing, although the country sample may have masked country variations. Sundeen (1992) found a similar result for volunteer program participation in a U.S. national sample (see also Sundeen and Siegel, 1987). These kinds of studies speak to the importance of community characteristics in volunteer participation. Large, urban places seem to be less receptive to volunteer participation, all other things being equal. State (Berger, 1991) and regional (Vaillancourt and Payette, 1986; Stump, 1986) effects on volunteer participation have also been found in national samples. The contextual variable of organizational type involves measures of the organization in which participation takes place or in some cases of the organization in which the subject works as a full-time job. One good example is Hougland and Shepard’s (1985) study of a national sample of middle managers, which found that they were more likely to participate in voluntary associations when they worked in a larger business (measured by logarithm of size). Other data in the study suggest that the reason for this is that larger corporations are more likely to have a subculture of community service that encourages managers to participate in voluntary associations. Such corporate subcultures of community service should be studied more directly and extensively Focusing more directly on the organization in which individuals participate as volunteers, Foss (1983) found blood donation higher in a university

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on August 4, 2016 that had generally positive attitudes toward volunteer participation than in a university where attitudes were less positive. But other characteristics of organizations have also been found to encourage volunteer participation. Betz and Judkins (1975) found more selective attraction and socialization in a voluntary group where there was more goal clarity and change orientation. Morris and Snyder (1983) found more union membership in twelve human service agencies where organizational efficiency was lower, size controlled. Clearly, the characteristics of the organization volunteered for or belonged to affect participation. There are many important differences in organizations that have not been examined carefully in relation to volunteer participation of members. Milofsky (1988) suggests a series of differences between community self-help organizations (voluntary associations, self-help groups, and so on) and more bureau- cratic voluntary organizations (libraries, hospitals, social welfare agencies, and so on) in terms of outputs, organizational ideology, interorganizational link- ages, returns to members or investors, and exclusivity of boundaries that very much need to be examined as contextual variables in multivariate studies of volunteer participation. Similarly, Watts and Edwards (1983) find in a study of 124 human service agencies that methods of recruitment and retention of volunteers vary much by agency. In fact, the study of contextual variables in general is much less developed than other areas of research on volunteer participation. Contextual variables have demonstrated their significance and importance in the period under review. New studies should follow these promising lines of inquiry by including variation in the communities, states, regions, and organizations in which participation takes place. Optimally, researchers should control for individual-level variables when they analyze their contextual data, as did Bell and Force (1956). Elaborating the role of community as a series of contextual variables seems a particularly promising line of research. The main problem in this subarea is the paucity of research, especially research that relates contextual variables to variables from other realms.

Social Background Variables Social background variables are the well-known and well-researched social role characteristics of the individual. Although they are used customarily and frequently, they often seem to be a jumble theoretically. A thread runs through the relationships of background variables to volunteer participation. Lemon, Palisi, and Jacobson (1972) called it the dominant status thread. The thread is that “participation is generally greater for individuals who are characterized by a more dominant [sociocultural system-valuedlpreferred] set of social posi- tions and roles, both ascribed and achieved” (Smith, 1983, p. 86). Examples of dominant statuses include “male gender, middle age . . . married, parents of [a few] ‘legitimate’children, parents of children who are mainly in the age

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on August 4, 2016 Volii~ita~yAssocintion Particiyntion nitd Volwiteering 247 range of about five to fifteen years, friend of several persons of both sexes. . . member of several formal voluntary groups, nonsick, nonimpaired . . . long- term residents. . . high in income and wealth . . . employed in paid work . . . high in occupational prestige, [andl high in formal educational level” (Smith, 1983, pp. 86-87). It is argued that, in each of these instances, possession of the characteristic gives one more prestige and respect in current American society. Some variables are well established in this regard (education), while others are more hypothetical at this point (friend of several persons of both sexes). This thread is important because it advances our knowledge beyond a mere string of variables. It provides an underlying principle that helps us to make sense of many relationships. Much research is needed on the prestige value of the variables in the preceding list whose dominance at this point is more hypothetical. Prior findings (Smith, 1975) have been replicated to one degree or another by nonnational sample studies in the review period. (See Payne, Payne, and Reddy [ 19721 for earlier results.) For instance, using a sample of urban blacks, Florin, Jones, and Wandersman (1986) found more volunteer participation (activity in organizations) for blacks who were home owners, older, longer residents, and married. All these qualities were viewed as evidence of rootedness. There is also more participation for higher occupational status and higher education. A multicounty sample survey of adults aged forty-five and older (Edwards and White, 1980) found voluntary association participation (activity in organizations) to be associated significantly with the respondent’s education, the head of household’s education, occupational prestige, and income and with low family size. Several other relevant variables did not show significance.’ Some studies find little impact for the usual social background variables, even socioeconomic status (Hougland and Wood, 1980; Marullo, 1988; Perkins, 1989; Trela, 1976). This occurs generally when the study focuses on participation within a group or groups, not on membership and joining among the general population. Restricting the focus to members usually means the sample is already screened for significant homogeneity on background variables, so that there is attenuation and reduced impact of these variables (Perkins, 1989). A few studies contribute new variables or explanations, but the paucity of such contributions suggests that new types of social background variables in the research literature are relatively infrequent. For instance, Cutler (1976) argues that the decline in volunteer participation after middle age is due to the declining socioeconomic status that accompanies the older years. Clarke, Kornberg, and Lee (1975) find parental partisan homogeneity to be important in explaining student participation in a university political club. Smith and Baldwin (1974) found parental attitudes toward volunteer participation to be a significant predictor of adult participation among people from eight Massachusetts cities and towns.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on August 4, 2016 248 Smith

Most important are the several national sample studies that were published during the review period. In the main, these studies focused on background variables (Auslander and Litwin, 1988; Hodgkinson and Weitzman, 1986; Hodgkinson, Weitzman, Noga, and Gorski, 1992; Palisi and Kom, 1989; Roof and Hoge, 1980; Vaillancourt and Payette, 1986). Several find the predicted result that volunteer participation peaks in the middle years. The exact years of the peak vary a bit from study to study, but they seem to be in the range of thirty-five to fifty-five.’ In national surveys during the review period, gender has a complex relationship to participation. In some studies, the result is as predicted: with other variables controlled, participation is greater for males (Curtis, Grabb, and Baer, 1992; Cutler, 1980; Palisi and Korn, 1989; Williams and Ortega, 1986). Other results, mainly bivariate, show that participation is greater for females (Hodgkinson and Weitzman 1986; Hodgkinson, Weitzman, Noga, and Gorski, 1992), especially when the dependent variable is volunteer work and not association participation. Some results are simply mixed and insignificant (Aus- lander and Litwin, 1988; Berger, 1991; Vaillancourt and Payette, 1986). It is not at all clear that the predicted result of greater participation by males is now generally true, although it once was true here (Verba and Nie, 1972) and abroad (Curtis, 1971). It would be interesting to know why it sometimes but not always seems to be true. Changing gender roles and attitudes in the United States-particularly the progress of feminism-are likely to be reasons for the U.S. data. Also, the greater participation of women in volunteer programs may result from a more female-receptive image of such work, whether such an image is sexist or not. Apparent gender differences are reduced when other social background variables are controlled for (Berger, 1991). In national surveys, more education is the strongest and most consistent predictor of volunteer participation, as the dominant status model generally predicts (Auslander and Litwin, 1988; Berger, 1991; Curtis, Grabb, and Baer, 1992; Cutler, 1980; Hodgkinson and Weitzman, 1986; Menchik and Weis- brod, 1987; Palisi and Kom, 1989; Sundeen, 1992; Vaillancourt and Payette, 1986; Williams and Ortega, 1986). National surveys also find higher income consistent in predicting participation (Auslander and Litwin, 1988; Cutler, 1980; Hodgkinson and Weitzman, 1986; Hodgkinson, Weitzman, Noga, and Gorski, 1992; Menchik and Weisbrod, 1987; Sundeen, 1992; Palisi and Korn, 1989). Hodgkinson and Weitzman (1986) differ a bit in suggesting that participation peaks for incomes in the range of $40,000-$49,999, which suggests a kind of middle-class bulge. But more recently, two of the same researchers (Hodgkinson, Weitzman, Noga, and Gorski, 1992) found that participation peaked for incomes of $100,000 plus; there was a secondary peak in the range of $40,000-$49,999. When surveys attend to occupational prestige, the findings are consistent with predictions: Participation increases with prestige (Vaillancourt and Payette, 1986; Palisi and Korn, 1989). In short, the socioeconomic status variables as a cluster are consistent with

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on August 4, 2016 Voluntnry Association Pnrticipation aid Volunteering 249 predictions in national surveys, and higher socioeconomic status predicts increased volunteer participation. What we need now is research on the impact of these variables once a person has become a member of a volunteer program or association. Earlier research (Smith, 1966) suggests that homogeneity and attenuation reduce the impact of socioeconomic status on participation once an individual becomes a member. The degree to which people see various socioeconomic status variables as dominant statuses also needs research. The dominant status model predicts less participation for less dominant minorities, such as African-Americans and Hispanics. The results confirm or disconfirm this prediction according to whether bivariate or multivariate results are consulted. Zero-order results show that whites participate more (Hodgkinson and Weitzman, 1986; Hodgkinson, Weitzman, Noga, and Gorski, 1992; Palisi and Korn, 1989). Multivariate results, particularly when socioeconomic status is controlled for, usually show that nonwhites, especially African-Americans, participate more (Auslander and Litwin, 1988; Bob0 and Gilliam, 1990; Palisi and Korn, 1989; Williams and Ortega, 1986). But, in a multivariate analysis of national sample data that controlled socioeconomic status and other variables, Sundeen (1992) finds that whites volunteer more. Widespread racism in American society results in lower socioeconomic status for nonwhites on the average, which usually masks the tendency for nonwhites to participate more when socioeconomic status is controlled statistically (but see Berger, 1991). Future research should seek to determine why African-American participation is often higher in multivariate studies. According to the dominant status model, being married is the preferred or higher-prestige marital status in American society In national surveys, married are more likely to participate than others (Auslander and Litwin, 1988; Hodgkinson and Weitzman, 1986; Hodgkinson, Weitzman, Noga, and Gorski, 1992; Palisi and Korn, 1989; Vaillancourt and Payette, 19861, as the dominant status model predicts. One study (Williams and Ortega, 1986) found the sep- arated and divorced to be higher participators. Some national studies found full-time-employed people to be more likely to participate (Auslander and Litwin, 1988; Curtis, Grabb, and Baer, 1992; Edwards, Edwards, and Watts, 1984; Reddy and Smith, 1972). Other national surveys, especially surveys of volunteer work rather than voluntary association participation, found that part-time workers participate more than either employed or unemployed persons (Hodgkinson and Weitzman, 1986; Hodgkinson, Weitzman, Noga, and Gorski, 1992; Vaillancourt and Payette, 1986). Part-time work presumably gives people more time for participation than full-time work does. Work involves people in society. This involvement leads part-time workers to participate more than the unemployed. There is some evidence that volunteer participation increases with the number of children in the household under eighteen or even under fifteen

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on August 4, 2016 250 Smith

(Berger, 1991; Schiff, 1990). This finding probably results in part from the tendency for parents of school-age children to be drawn into activities and organizations that benefit their children, such as parent-teacher associations, sports team boosting, scouting, and so on. Some researchers have found that length of residence in the community is associated with more volunteer participation (Berger, 1991; Schiff, 1990). Deeper roots in the community seem to manifest themselves in volunteering as well as in such relationships as friendship and neighboring. To sum up, several standard social background variables perform generally as predicted by the dominant status model. This is particularly true for the socioeconomic status variables, age, and marital status. Further research needs to examine and explain why gender, race, and to some extent employment status differ from the predictions of the dominant status model. Other background variables-for instance, length of residence (McPherson and Lockwood, 1980; Roof and Hoge, 1980), family size (Edwards and White, 1980)-are seldom used. It would be useful to see results for other social background variables identified as dominant statuses, as suggested earlier in this section. And it is important for future research to investigate directly the degree of sociocultural approval for different social background variables, a matter crucial to the dominant status model.

Personality Variables Personality traits (enduring, transsituational, general response dispositions of an individual) are seldom studied by researchers other than psychologists in relation to volunteer participation. This is unfortunate. Such traits have important potential as part of the total explanation for volunteer participation, and this section examines the relevant research from the period under review. Allen and Rushton (1983) reviewed the literature on the personality characteristics of community mental health volunteers. They found much consen- sus in their results that volunteer participation was higher for individuals with more efficacy (internal locus of control), empathy, morality, emotional stability, and self-esteem or ego strength-all indicators of a social orientation.’ The literature is thin but promising. It would be a great help to have similar literature reviews for other types of volunteers and for voluntary association participation of all types. It is important for personality trait studies to include predictors from other realms-for example, the contextual, social background, attitudinal, and situational variables discussed in this review-so that we could compare the various realms controlling for each other. Virtually no studies in the period under review do this, but see Rogers (1971) and Smith (1966) for earlier examples. Personal capacities do not seem to be included in the volunteer participation literature of the period under review Nor are there any data on expectancies, intentions, or retained information. Probably such variables are

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on August 4, 2016 Voltiiitary Associatioil Participation atid Voliiiiteering 251

considered too “psychological”to interest most sociologists, although the present review includes material from journals outside sociology proper. But because psychologists who study capacities show little interest in relating such variables to volunteer participation, nobody does it. Research is much needed here. Earlier research shows the promise of capacities as predictors of volunteer participation (Bronfenbrenner, 1960).

Attitudinal Variables Attitudinal variables were often investigated in the period under review- indeed, more so than any other realm of variables. They are important potential factors affecting volunteer participation. Volunteer participation is clearly affected by the volunteer’s attitudes toward the group of interest. For the period under review, Chacko (1985) identified the importance of perceived effectiveness of the volunteer group. Cook (1984) found affirming one’s efficacy in the larger political system to be important. Other studies show that participation increases when the respondent sees the group or role as more attractive and satisfying (Chacko, 1985; Rohs, 1986) and its activity as interesting (Gidron,1983; Hodgkinson and Weitzman, 1986; Hodgkinson, Weitzman, Noga, and Gorski, 1992; Opp, 1986). Attitudes about possible or actual rewards are especially important. Condre, Warner, and Gillman (1976), Klandermans (19841, and Schafer (1979) found that more perceived benefits, less costs of participation, or both are significant. Pearce (1983) found that rewards for joining a volunteer group were perceived to be different from the rewards of remaining in a group. Rewards from immediate work experience were more important for remaining in the group, while long-range rewards were more important for joining. Much attention was given during the period under review to altruistic attitudes toward participation in volunteer groups, although this variable, when generalized, is sometimes a personality trait. Several important studies have found altruism to be often given as a reason for such participation.4 However, Smith (1981) argued that there was little “pure” altruism in participation, since people gain some pleasure for themselves even when acting “altruistically” Drawing on Clark and Wilson (1961), some researchers have found purposive incentives (attraction to the group’s purpose) to be important for volunteer participation (Cook, 1984;Jenner, 1982). In contrast, Widmer (1985) argues that social and developmental (self-development) incentives are primary. The line of research focused on purposive incentives seems dominant, especially when such incentives are framed as adherence to group ideology and policy leading to more parti~ipation.~ Another important line of research finds volunteer participation greater where there is more sense of civic duty-felt obligation to participate in civic affairs by voting, participating in groups, and so on (Cook, 1984; Florin,

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on August 4, 2016 252 Sinith

Jones, and Wandersman, 1986; Friedman, Florin, Wandersman, and Meier, 1988). Related to this is the tendency for participation to increase when one has a greater sense of political efficacy and local influence (Florin, Jones, and Wandersman, 1986; Friedman, Florin, Wandersman, and Meier, 1988). Values, a broad kind of attitude, have been examined in relation to volunteer participation. Hougland and Christenson (1982) found that active members had significantly more values of moral integrity, patriotism, political democracy, helping others, and national progress. Other studies (Williams, 1986) find other values to distinguish active In sum, many kinds of attitudes have been found to predict volunteer participation. The diversity of attitudes studied without replication is a major problem, but the realm of variables as a whole seems very promising. The most important attitudinal predictors seem to be perceived effectiveness of the group, perceived benefits relative to costs, altruistic attitudes, civic duty, and political efficacy. Attitudes of a general sort, such as those listed by Mulford and Klonglan (1972), need more attention (for example, perception of the instrumental value of volunteer groups, formal group preference). It is important for some national studies to use the full range of attitudes that past research has found to be important in conjunction with other attitudes suggested by the active-effective character hypothesis (Smith, 1983) in order to clarify the attitudes that are crucial. In short, there should be more replication across the board.

Situational Variables Situational variables are the hardest to specify neatly, but they deal with the immediate situation of the individual and his or her perception of that situation. In sociological terms, situational variables have to do with the symbolic interaction between one individual and others. In psychological terms, situational variables have to do with an individual’s cognitive assessment of the situation. Booth and Babchuk (1969) were perhaps the first to specify such variables for volunteer participation. They found that affiliation with voluntary groups was influenced strongly by personal contacts and personal influence. During the period under review, investigators identified being asked or encouraged to join a volunteer group as the most important situational predictor variable.’ Organizational involvement, such as receiving services from the organization, is a significant and closely related predictor (Adams, 1980; Hodgkinson and Weitzman, 1986; Hodgkinson, Weitzman, Noga, and Gorski, 1992). Having friends in the organization (Hougland and Wood, 1980; Perkins, 1989; Rohs, 1986) results in increased participation, as does being an officer (Clarke, Komberg, and Lee, 1975; Hougland and Wood, 1980): Studies of situational variables are rare, but they do show such variables to be important predictors of volunteer participation. A national sample multivariate study

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on August 4, 2016 Voluntary Association Participation atid Volunteering 253

conducted by Berger (1991) found that being asked to join was one of the two most important variables predicting volunteer program participation, the other being education. In the period under review, only Heshka (1983) focused explicitly on a range of situational predictors. This is a problem. Such variables seem to fall through the cracks theoretically and empirically for most researchers. Much more attention is needed to this class of variables.

Social Participation Variables Social participation variables deal with how an indikldual participates in such societal discretionary time activities as friendship, politics, associations, church, neighboring, outdoor recreation, and mass media activity. The more one studies these variables, the more social participation variables seem to create prob- lems for the study of participation. Should we consider them to be independent or dependent variables? I prefer to view them as parts of a complex dependent variable that we can call the general activity pattern. This pattern can be seen best when we combine many kinds of socially approved participation into a single index and analyze its determinants. Subsequently, we analyze its component domains (such as voluntary group participation or friendship activity) separately. Leaving the question of causality open for the moment, it is clear that, in the literature of the period under review, volunteer group participation is associated significantly with different types of social participation, such as neighborhood interaction, friendship activity, political activity, church participation, outdoor recreation and sports, mass media activity except television viewing, informal helping, charitable giving, and participation in other volunteer groups, whether at present or earlier in time.9 Chambrt? (1987) showed that an index of fifteen kinds of social participation among people sixty years of age or older correlates positively and significantly with volunteering when socio- demographic variables in a national sample are controlled for. Volunteer participation is associated significantly with other forms of socioculturally approved uses of discretionary time. Unfortunately, most studies include only one or a few types of discretionary activity. Comprehensive studies with national samples are needed to explore the degree of interrela- tionship among different activity types. Activity types also need to be evalu- ated for degree of sociocultural approval, to see if such evaluation helps to explain the clustering among types of discretionary activity.

Applicable Models Study of the determinants of volunteer participation has few theoretical models. In the realm of social background and role determinants, the first model was the dominant 'statuses approach of Lemon, Palisi, and Jacobson (1972).

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on August 4, 2016 254 SJlIith

This model argues that people participate more in volunteer roles when they are characterized by socially approved or “dominant” statuses, such as higher education, greater income, middle age, married status, longer time in the community, and more children under eighteen in the household (Smith, 1983). The dominant status model receives substantial confirmation in most relevant studies and for most of the social background variables reviewed here. This is true particularly for education, income, and occupational prestige. However, the model is also generally true for number of children in the household under eighteen, length of time resident in the community, age, and marital status and, in bivariate analyses, for race (where the “dominant”whites seem to participate more than African-Americans) but not in multivariate analyses. Proponents of the model need to clarify this issue. Chambre (1987), using a national elderly sample, presents a path model predicting volunteering with direct effects from dominant status variables (for example, younger age among the elderly or higher education) and social participation and with some indirect effects from other social background variables scored in the dominant status direction. Another area in which the dominant status model fails to fit data from repeated national surveys is gender. The model predicts more male participation, and this prediction has been borne out in other nations (Curtis, 1971) and in our own nation in earlier decades (Verba and Nie, 1972). But, for the period under review, the picture is mixed, although findings tend to confirm males as higher in participation in associations and women as higher for volunteer work. Employment status (where employment is predicted as high) also gives a mixed picture. But part-time employment was more powerful mainly when volunteer work rather than association participation was the dependent variable. Still, this exception, too, needs explanation. Other realms of variables deserve attention. Beal(1956) was one of the first to suggest the need for additional hypotheses in participation research, specifically to go beyond social background variables. These additional variables are sometimes referred to as dynamic variables-attitudes, personality, and the like. Others (Berger, 1991; Hougland and Wood, 1980; Rogers, 1971; Rohs, 1986; Smith, 1966) have echoed this position and demonstrated the empirical explanatory value of such variables in the study of volunteer participation. Heshka (1983) showed that situational variables can be dynamic as well, as did Berger (1991). One major element of the ISSTAL (Interdisciplinary Sequential Specificity Time Allocation Lifespan) model (Smith, Macaulay, and Associates, 1980) is also confirmed in predicting that volunteer participation can only be explained adequately by the simultaneous inclusion of relevant variables from all the categories examined in this literature review (Smith, 1983), including the dynamic variables. No study reviewed for this article, with the possible exception of Berger’s (1991), which depended on definitions of personality variables, actually included all such kinds of variables, but the studies

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on August 4, 2016 Voliintary Association Participntioii atid Volunteering 255 reviewed show that all present categories of variables are important. Studies that overlook one or more realms of variables are not trying to explain volunteer participation fully. The General Activity Model (Smith, Macaulay, and Associates, 1980) argues in part that, the more one participates in one kind of socioculturally approved discretionary time activity, the more one will tend to participate in other kinds of such activity, including volunteer participation. The present review provides broad support for this hypothesis by showing volunteer participation to be associated positively with such socioculturally approved discretionary time activities as neighborhood interaction, friendship activity, informal helping, charitable giving, political activity, church participation, mass media activity (except television viewing), and participation in other volunteer groups (see the earlier section on social participation variables). Smith (1969) shows strong multivariate support for the General Activity Model by factor analysis. Chambre (1987) finds support for the model among a national sample of the elderly: Volunteering is significantly correlated (r = .35)with a fifteen- item activity index including such social activities as Lisiting, recreation, going to movies, going to community centers, and going to senior centers that shows high intercorrelation among individual items. Hodgkinson,. Weitznian, Noga, and Gorski (1992) find support for the model in another national sample and add the elements of charitable giving and informal helping. Using the national sample cited earlier, Berger (1991) finds support for church participation and charitable giving. Busching (1987) also found some support for the model, although the relationships were weak and narrow in the types of participation included. Much more multivariate testing of the General Activity Model and its central hypothesis is needed. Such testing should measure many activity realms simultaneously. Another important element of the General Activity Model is that volunteer participation is predicted to increase with the presence of the active- effective character, which specifies personality traits and attitudes that will be important (Smith, 1983). The model is confirmed partly by the current reiqew for the personality traits of efficacy, emotional stability, self-esteem and ego strength, and assertiveness. The model is also partly confirmed by this review for the attitudes of perceived effectiveness of the group, perceived high ratio of benefits to costs for group members, and altruistic attitudes (concern for social welfare and the common good). Other significant traits and attitudes have been found that are not explicitly in the model. To sum up, there is significant evidence for the dominant status model (in social background variables), the ISSTAL model (on the value of using personality, attitude, and situational predictors in addition to social background and contextual variables), and the General Activity Model (on the clustering of socioculturally approved discretionary time activities and the predictive value of the active-effective character pattern). Very few studies focus on all three models simultaneously. More such studies would be welcome.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on August 4, 2016 256 S 111 it 11

Conclusion The results of this review of the literature on determinants of participation in volunteer programs and activities confirm that studies in this area need to include at least five realms of determinants. We know a lot about why people participate in volunteer programs and voluntary associations. (The high R2 of Rohs [ 19861 is in the 60 percent range, although most variance results are much lower. Berger [ 19911 reports an R2 of 40 percent.) More volunteer participation results from larger context (territory and organization), social background and role variables, personality traits, attitudes, and situational variables. Although background and attitude variables have been reasonably well studied, more kinds of background variables need to be studied. The social background variables that have been studied generally confirm the dominant status model proposed by Lemon, Palisi, and Jacobson (19721, but some aspects of this model, such as gender, race, and employment status, do not behave as expected. These aspects need more research. Attitude variables that have been studied only once or twice need replication studies. The literature on the context, personality and situation is thin. Relatively few sociological researchers are familiar with such variables or consider them relevant. Perhaps sociologists are reluctant to intrude on another discipline's territory and variables. The same holds true for psychologists' study of personality: They hesitate to study context or attitudes at the same time. Boundaries between disciplines keep us from extending our understanding of volunteer participation. There is substantial need for a multidisciplinary national sample survey of volunteer participation using a variety of determinants in each of the five realms identified in this review. If one uses only one or two indicators of a given realm and they do not work out, the result makes the realm look weak when choice of variables may be the problem. For example, Rohs (1986), in his exemplary study, uses a good indicator of one personality trait, but when it fails to discriminate he must reject the personality realm altogether, lacking any other indicators. So far, the national sample surveys on volunteer participation are confined largely to social background variables. with a sprinkling of context (for example, region, community size), attitude, and situational variables. Use of a larger set of determinant realms tends to increase the variance explained in a volunteer participation study substantially over the 10 to 15 percent of the variance explained by social background variables alone (Auslander and Litwvin, 1988; Palisi and Kom, 1989; Vaillancourt and Payette, 1986).1°Unfortunately, many researchers fail even to compute a proportional-reduction-of-error-variancesta- tistic (for example, R2). A multirealm national survey should be sure to measure joining volunteer groups separately from activity in or leaving volunteer groups, since this review, like some prior work (Berger, 1991; Smith, 1966), has shown that these have different determinant patterns. Some studies examine background variables in depth but look at other realms only superficially. For example, investigators ask respondents why they

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on August 4, 2016 Voliintaiy Association Participation atid Volimteeriag 257 participate and content themselves with the resulting answer. This can be termed the motive talk approach (Groom, 1969; Hodgkinson and Weitzman, 1986; Uzzell, 1980). Personality traits and attitudes toward the volunteer group or groups in general are not explored. Part of the problem is lack of time or space in the interview or questionnaire. But something else needs to give so that there is room for more attitude, personality, and situational variables. Rochford (1985, p. 73) shows that other variables can be much more important than “motive talk.” The General Activity Model (Smith, 1983) postulates positive intercorre- lations among socioculturally valued discretionary time activities like volunteer participation and friendship, neighboring, political activity, and recreation. The present rekiew finds support for this model. It would help if one created a composite index of many varied measures of such participation and analyzed its determinants, then analyzed volunteer participation as a subrealm of the composite larger realm (general discretionary time activity). Most researchers treat volunteer participation as a unidimensional variable. However, Williams and Ortega (1986) show that the pattern of social background variable predictors varies with the purposive type of voluntary group (church related, recreational, and so on) in a national sample. This finding indicates that joining volunteer groups is multidimensional and that researchers should examine participation by group type as well as overall. Sim- ilarly, research by Heidrich (1990) suggests that different types of volunteers (direct service, leadership, general support, members-at-large) differ in terms of life-style measures. Finally, the study of volunteer participation would be well served by two additional approaches. On the one hand, more interdisciplinary cross-fertilization and collaboration are needed, since the causality reviewed here involves variables from different disciplines. Disciplinary barriers need to be overcome. On the other hand, more international cross-fertilization is also needed. The present review, regrettably, had to be largely restricted to North American materials. Similar reviews for other regions of the world or single nations would help us to sort out the relationships that are common to advanced industrial (or developing) society from the relationships that are particularly American, Australian, or French. Inter- national elaboration is needed.

Notes 1. Other studies also tend to replicate various elements of the dominant status model, particularly the socioeconomic variables (Cutler, 1976; Knoke and Thompson, 1977; Kolchin and Hgclak, 1983; hkPherson and Lockwood, 1980; Palisi and Palisi, 1984; Perkins. 1989). Excep- tions include Perkins’s (1989) finding that education and occupational prestige among partici- pants was only moderate. 2. Williams and Ortega (1986) find, inconsistently, more participation for age sixty-five to seventy-five in Canada, as do CurIis. Grabb. and Baer (1992) for fifteen industrialized nations. Cutler (1980) finds that the elderly are quite active in groups of interest 10 them but not neces- sarily more active overall.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on August 4, 2016 258 Smith

3. Other studies that lend support to the efficacy finding include Brown and Zahrly (1989). Florin. Jones, and Wandersman (1986), and hliller (1985). Florin, Jones, and \Vandenman (1986) find that assertiveness also predicts participation. In addition. there is evidence that participation is greater for more persistence, more warmth, and fewer depressive symptoms (Hunter and Linn. 1980-1981). hiissing from the literature of the period under review are some important variables, such as extraversion and energy/activation. 4. See Hatter and Nelson (1987), Hodgkinson and Weitzman (1986). Jenner (1982), Latting (1990), Opp (1986). Perkins (1989). Rubin and Thorelli (1984). Sundeen (1992). However. Gluck (1975) finds self-interest attitudes to be more important in explaining participation in local political committees of both main parties. 5. See Clarke, Komberg, and Lee (19751, Hougland and Wood (19801, Jenner (1982). hiarullo (1988). Opp (1986). Roof and Hoge (1980). and Waldron, Baron, Freese. and Sabrini (1988). These studies seem more solid when they measure group policy and ideology in varied detail (Roof and Hoge. 1980) than when they depend on a single summary item. 6. hlany other attitudes that predict participation have been studied only once in the period under rekiew: felt moral obligation to participate (\Valdron, Baron, Freese, and Sabrini. 1988); identification uith the organization (Hougland and \Vood, 1980); leader competence (Friedman, Florin, \Vandersman, and hleier, 1988); responsiveness of group to members (Chacko, 1985); use of volunteer skills and knowledge (Gidron, 1983); convenience for the volunteer (Gidron, 1983); company policy regarding volunteer participation (Hougland and Shepard, 1985); political discontent (Opp, 1986); identification with a residential block (Florin, Jones, and Wanders- man, 1986); job dissatisfaction (Kolchin and Hyclak, 1984); commitment to a larger movement (Kolchin and Hyclak. 1984); well-being (Palisi, 1985); less group control by inner circles (Houg- land and Wood, 1980); psychological involvement in volunteer work (Daily, 1986); satisfaction with volunteer work or role (Daily, 1986); helping those who have less (Hodgkinson. Weitzman. Noga. and Gorski, 1992); the importance of personal charity (Sundeen. 1992); and moral obligation to benefit others (Berger, 1991). 7. See Adams (1980), Berger (1991). Heshka (1983). Hodgkinson and Weitzman (1986), Hodgkinson. Weitzman, Noga, and Gorski (1992). Rohs (1986). 8. Other significant predictors in the literature for which there is only a single support study are social pressure (Condre, Warner, and Gillman, 1976). media influence (Heshka, 1983), availability during a disaster (Stallings, 1989). availability of a new time block (Heshka, 1983), social support (Clary. 1987). an associate’s joining (Heshka. 1983). and getting along with others in the union (Kolchin and Hyclak, 1984). 9. hiore volunteer participation is associated with more local neighboring acti\ity (Hougland and Shepard. 1985; Unger and Wandersman, 1983). A related finding is that there is more volunteer participation when there is more friendship activity (Auslander and Litnin, 1988; Hougland and Wood, 1980; Palisi, 1985). More volunteer participation is associated with more political activity (Hodgkinson, LVeitzmn, Noga, and Gorski, 1992; Rogers and Bultena. 1975) and with more church participation (Berger, 1991; Hodgkinson and Weiuman. 1986; Hodgkinson, Weitzman, Noga, and Gorski, 1992; Hougland and Wood, 1980; Roof and Hoge, 1980). Outdoor recreation and sports (Smith and Theberge, 1987) and mass media acthity, excluding television \iewing, Ueffres and Robinson. 1980) are associated with volunteer participation, Similarly, informal helping (Hodgkinson, Weitzmn, Noga. and Gorski. 1992) and charitable giving (Berger. 1991; Hodgkinson, Weitzman, Noga, and Gorski. 1992) are associated with volunteer participation. participation in one volunteer group is associated \\ith participation in other volunteer groups (Hodgkinson and Weitzman. 1986; Hodgkinson, Weitzman, Noga, and Gorski, 1992; hiarullo, 1988). And over time, more volunteer participation is associated \\ith prior extracurricular activiiies in high school (Hanks and Eckland, 1978; Snyder. 1970). People who do not participate in one panicular or any volunteer group can be seen a.s latent participators (Young and hlayo. 1959) if they are active in some other kind or kinds of social participation. As such, they could be prime targets for recruitment. 10. For Berger (1991). R2 was 40 percent; for Florin. Jones, and Wandersman (1986). 29 percent; for Kolchin and Hyclak (1984). 20 percent; for hlarullo (1988), 49 percent; for Rohs (1986). 65 percent; and for Smith (1966),71 percent.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on August 4, 2016 Volitntaty Associatioil Participation arid Volunteeririg 259

References

Adams, D. S. (1980). Elite and loiver volunteers in a voluntary association: A study of an Amer- ican Red Cross chapter. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 9( 1-4). 95-108. Allen, N. J., and Rushton, J. P. (1983). Personality characteristics of community mental health volunteers: A review.Journa1 oJVoluntary Action Research. 12(1), 3-9. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature ofprejudice. Boston: Beacon. Auslander, G. K., and Litwin, Howard. (1988). Sociability and patterns of participation: Impli- cations for social senice policy. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, I7(2), 25-37. Bed, G. hl. (1956). Additional hypotheses in participation research. Rural Sociology, 21,249-256. Bell, W.,and Force, hl. T. (1956). Urban neighborhood types and participation in formal associations. Anierican Sociological Review, 21 (1). 25-34. Berger. G. (1991). Factors explaining volutiteeringJor organizatiom in general and jor social rr.cl/arc organizations in particular. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Heller School of Social Welfare, Brandeis University. Betz, hl., and Judkins, B. (1975). The impact ol voluntary association characteristics on selective attraction and socialization. Sociological Quarterly, 16(2), 22&230. Bobo, L., and Gilliam. F., Jr. (1990). Race, sociopolitical participation, and black empowerment. Anierican Political Science Review, 84, 377-393. Booth, A,, and Babchuk, N. (1969). Personal influence networks and voluntary association affiliation. Sociological hquiry, 39. 179-188. Bronfenbrenner. U. (1960). Personality and participation: The case of the vanishing variables. Journal of Social Issues, 16, 53-63. Bron-n, E. P.. and Zahrly, J. (1989). Nonmonetary rewards for skilled volunteer labor: A look ar crisis intervention volunteers. NonproJit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 18(2), 167-177. Busching, W.(1987). An examination of volunteering among members of a fraternal benefit society employing the ISSTAL and general activity models. Journal o/ Voluntary Action Research, 16(4). 69-85. Chacko, T. 1. (1985). Participation in union activities: Perceptions of union priorities, performance, and satisfaction. Journal of Labor Research. G(4). 363-373. Chambre, S.hl. (1987). Good deeds in old age: Voltinkwing by the new leisure class. Lexington. hlA: Lexington Books. Clark. P. B., and \Vilson. J. Q. (1961). Incentive systems: A theory of organizations. Administra- tive Science Quarterly, 6, 129-166. Clarke, H. P.. Kornberg, A.. and Lee. J. (1975). Ontario student party acti\ists: A note on differ- ential participation in a voluntary organization. Canadian Review oJSociology and Anthropology, 12(2), 213-220. Clary, E. G. (1987). Social support as a unifying concept in voluntary action.Journa1 cf Voluntary Action Research, IG(4). 58-68. Condre, S. J., Warner. W. K., and Gillman, D. C. (1976). Getting blood from collective turnips: Volunteer donation in mass blood drives. Journal ofApplied Ps)vhology, 61(3), 290-294. Cook, C. E. (1984). Participation in public interest groups: Membership motivations. American Politics Quarterly, 12(4), 409-430. Curtis. J. E. (1971). Voluntary association joining: A cross-national comparative note. American Sociological Review, 36, 872-880. Curtis, J. E., Grabb, E., and Baer, D. (1992). Voluntary association membership in fifteen coun- tries: A comparative analysis. Anierican Sociological Review, 57, 139-152. Cutler, N. E. (1980). Toward an appropriate typology for the study of the participation of older persons in voluntary associations.Journa1 of Voluntary Action Research, 9(1-4). 9-19. Cutler, S. J. (1976). Age differencesin voluntary sociation memberships. Social Fot-ces, 55(1), 43-58. Daily, R. C. (1986). Understanding organizational commitment for volunteers: Empirical and managerial implications. Joumal of Voluntary Action Research, 15(1). 19-31. Edwards, J. N.. and IVhite, R. P. (1980). Predictors of social participation: Apparent or real?Jour- nu1 of Voluntary Action Research, g(1-4). 60-73.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on August 4, 2016 260 Sf Jlith

Ed~vards,P. K., Edwards, J. N.. and Watts, A. D. (1984). Women, work, and social participation.Jounial of Voluntary Action Research, 13(1), 7-22. Florin, P., Jones, E., and Wandersman, A. (1986). Black participation in voluntary associations. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 15(1), 65-86. Foss, R. D. (1983). Community norms and blood donation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13(4), 281-290. Friedman, R. R., Florin. P., Wandersman. A,, and hleier, R. (1988). Local action on behalf of local collectives in the United States and Israel: How different are leaders from members in voluntary associations? journal ojVoluntary Action Research, 17(3-4), 36-54. Gidron, B. (1983). Sources of job satisfaction among senice volunteers.Jounial of Voluntary Aclion Research, 12(1), 20-35. Gluck, P. R. (1975). An exchange theory of incentives of urban political party organization.journal of Voluntary Action Research, 4(1-2). 104-1 15. Groom, P. (1969). Americans volunteer. hlanpower/Automation hlonograph No. 10. Washing- ton, DC: US.Department of Labor. Hanks, hl., and Eckland. B. K. (1978). Adult voluntary associations and adolescent socialization. Sociological Quarterly, 19(3), 481490. Hatter, J. K., and Nelson, D. L. (1987). Altruism and task participation in the elderly. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 41(6), 379-381. Heidrich, K. \V. (1990). Volunteers' life-styles: hlarket segmentation based on volunteers' role choices. h'onprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 19, 21-31. Heshka; S. (1983). Situational variables affecting participation in voluntary associations. In Dadd H. Smith and Jon Van Ti1 (Eds.), International perspectives on voluntary action research. Wash- ington, DC: University Press of America. Hodgkinson, V. A., and \Veitzman, hl. S. (1986). Dimensions ofthe independent sector. (2nd ed.) Washington. DC: INDEPENDENT SECTOR. Hodgkinson, V. A,. Weitzman, hl., Noga, S. hl., and Gorski, H. A. (1992). Giving and volunteering in the United States: 1992 edition. Washington, DC: INDEPENDENT SECTOR. Hougland. J. G., Jr., and Christenson, J. A. (1982). Voluntary organizations and dominant Amer- ican values.journal o/ Voluntary Action Research. J J(4). 6-26. Hougland. J. G., Jr., and Shepard. J. hl. (1985). Volunteerism and the managers: The impacts of structural pressure and personal interest on community participation. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, /4(2-3). 63-78. Hougland, J. G., Jr., and Wood, J. R. (1980). Correlates of participation in local churches. Soci- ological FOCUS,13(4), 343-358. Hunter, K. I., and Linn, hl. W. (1980-1981). Psychosocial differences between elderly volunteers and nonvolunteers. InternationalJournal ofAging and Human Development, 12(3). 205-213. Jeffres, L. W., and Robinson, J. P. (1980). Participation in mass media consumption. In David H. Smith, Jacqueline hlacaulay, and Associates, Participation in Social and Political Activities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Jenner, J. R. (1982). Participation, leadership. and the role of volunteerism among selected women volunteers. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 11(4), 27-38. Klandermans, P. G. (1984). hlobilization and participation in trade union action: An expectancy value approach. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 57, 107-120. Knoke. D., and Thomson. R. (1977). Voluntary association membership trends and the family life cycle. Social Forces, 56( 1). 4W5. Kolchin, hl. G.,and Hyclak, T. (1984). Participation in union actitlties: A multivariate analysis. Journal ofhbor Research, 33). 255-262. Latting. J. K. (1990). hlotivational differences between black and white volunteers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Secfor Quarterly, 19(2), 121-135. Layton, D. N. (1987). Philanthropy and volunteerism: An annotated bibliograpliy. New York: The Foundation Center.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on August 4, 2016 Voluiitary Associatiail Participation aid Voluatoerisg 261

Lemon, ht., Palisi, B. J., and Jacobson, P. E. (1972). Dominant statuses and involvement in formal voluntary associations. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, I(2). 30-42. hlarullo, 5. (1988). Leadership and membership in the nuclear freeze movement: A specification of resource mobilization theory. Sociological Quarterly, 29(3), 407-427. htcPherson. J. hl.. and Lockwood, W. G. (1980). The longitudinal study of voluntary association membership: A multivariable analysis. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 9( 1-41. 74-84. hlenchik, P., and Weisbrod, B. (1987). Volunteer labor supply.Journal of Public Economics, 32, 159-183. hliller. L. E. (1985). Understanding the motivation of volunteers: An examination of personality differences and characteristics of volunteers' paid employment. Joui-nal of Voluntary Action Research, 14(2-3), 112-122. hlilofsky, C.(1988). Structure and process in community self-help organizations. In Carl htilof- sky (Ed.), Community Organizations. New York: Oxford University Press. htorris, J. H., and Snyder, R. A. (1983). Organization performance and voluntary union membership among human senice organizations. Journal o/ Occupational Psychology, 56, 183-190. htulford, C. L., and Klonglan, G. E. (1972). Attitude determinants of indiiidual participation in organized voluntary action. In DaLid H. Smith, Richard D. Reddy, and Burr R. Bsldnin (Eds.), Voluntary Action Research: 1972. Lexington, htA: Heath. Opp. K.-D. (1986). Soft incentives and collective action: Participation in the antinuclear movement. BritisJiJounial of Political Science, 16, 87-1 12. Palisi, B. J. (1985). Formal and informal participation in urban areas. Journal ofsocial Psychology, 125(4), 429447. Palisi, B. J.. and Korn. B. (1989). National trends in voluntary association membership: 1974-1984. h'onprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 18(2), 179-190. Palisi, B. J., and Palisi, R. J. (1984). Status and voluntary associations: A cross-cultural study of males in three metropolitan areas. Jounial of Voluntary Action Research, 13(3), 33-43. Pa)me, R., Pajne, B. P., and Reddy, R. D. (1972). Social background and role determinants of indibidual participation in organized voluntary action. In Dinid H. Smith, Richard D. Reddy, and Burt R. Baldwin (Eds.). Voluntary action research: 1972. Lexington. htA: Heath. Pearce, J. 1. (1983). Participation in voluntary associations: How membership in a formal organization changes the rewards of participation. In Da\-id Horton Smith, Jon Van Til. and others (Eds.), International perspectives on voluntary action research. Washington, DC: University Press of America. Perkins, K. B. (1989). Volunteer firefighters in the United States: A descriptive study. h'onprofit and Voluntaty Sector Quarterly, 18(3), 269-277. Phillips, hl. H. (1982). hlotivation and expectation in successful volunteerism. Journal of Vofun- lary Action Research, 11(2-3). 118-125. Pugliese, D. (1985). Voluntary associations: An annotated bibliography. New York: Garland. Reddy. R. D.. and Smith. D. H. (1972). Personality and capacity determinants ol individual participation in organized voluntary action. In D. H. Smith, R. D. Reddy, and B. R. Baldsin (Eds.), Voluntary action research: 1972. Lexington. hW: Heath. Rochford. E. B., Jr. (1985). Hare Kiishna in America. New Bmnswick. NJ: Rutgers University Press. Rogers, D. 1. (1971). Contrasts betneen beha\-ioral and affective involvement in voluntary associations: An exploratory analysis. Rural Sociology, 36, 340-380. Rogers, D. L., and Bultena. G. 1. (1975). Voluntary associations and political equality: An exten- sion of mobilization theory. Jounial of Voluntary Action Research. 4(3-4), 172-183. Rohs, F. R. (1986). Social background. personality, and attitudinal factors influencing the deci- sion to volunteer and level of involvement among adult 4-H leaders.Journa1 of Voluntary Action Research, 15(1), 87-99. Roof, W. C., and Hoge, D. R. (1980). Church involvement in America. Review OJ Religious Research. 21(4), 405-426.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on August 4, 2016 262 Smilh

Rubin, A,, and Thorelli, 1. hl. (1984). Egoistic motives and longevity of participation of social science volunteers. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 20(3),223-235. Schafer. R. B. (1979). Equity in a relationship bet\veen indittduals and a fraternal organization. Journal ojvoluntary Action Research, 8(3-4). 12-19. Schifl. J. (1990). Charitable giving and government policy: An economic analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Smith, C., and A. Freedman. (1972). Voluntary associations: Perspectives on the literature. Cam- bridge, hlA: Harvard University Press. Smith. D. H. (1966). A psychological model of individual parricipation in formal voluntary organizations: Application to some Chilean data. American Journal of Sociology, 72, 249-266. Smith, D. H. (1969). E\

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on August 4, 2016 Voltuitaiy Associatioit Pnrticiyation adVolunteering 263 Vaillancourt, F., and Payette, hi. (1986). The supply of volunteer work: The case of Canada.Jour- nal of Volunfary Acfiori Research, I5(4). 45-56. Verba, S., and Nie, N. H. (1972). Parficipafion in America. New Yotk: Harper & Row. Waldron, I., Baron, J., Freese, hl., and Sabrini. J. (1988). Activism against nuclear weapons buildup: Student participation in the 1984 primary campaigns. Journal of Applied Social Psy- chology, 18(10), 826-836. Warner, W. L., and Lunt, P. S. (1941). The social lge o/a modern cotnmunity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. \Vatts, A. D., and Edwards. P. K. (1983). Recruiting and retaining human service volunteers. Journal of Voluntary Acfion Research, 12(3), 9-22. \Vidmer, C. (1985). \Vhy board members participate.Joumal of Volunfary Action Research, 14(4), 8-23. Williams, J. A.. Jr., and Ortega, S. T. (1986). The multidimensionality of joining.Journal of Vol- untary Action Research, 15(4), 3544. Williams, R. F. (1986). The values of volunteer benefactors. Metifa1 Retardation,25(3), 163-168. Young, J. N., and hiayo, S. C. (1959). hianifest and latent participators in a rural community action program. Social Forces, 38, 130-145.

David Horfori Sniitli is professor of sociology at Boston College atidfotitiding edifor of fhis jounial.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on August 4, 2016