determinants of volunteerism: a cross-disciplinary reviewand research agenda

Determinants of Volunteerism:A Cross-Disciplinary Review

and Research Agenda

Walter WymerGlen RieckenUgur Yavas

INTRODUCTION

The Nonprofit Sector

The nonprofit sector of the economy fulfills important socialfunctions that would otherwise have to be performed by the govern-ment, funded through increased individual and business taxation, ornot performed at all. Nonprofit organizations (NPOs) in the U.S.number in the thousands and their missions are very diverse, rang-ing from AIDS volunteer groups to zoological associations. ManyNPOs provide services to groups who cannot afford to pay forthem. These NPOs, therefore, must rely on government grants,charitable contributions, and volunteers to operate. Charitable giv-ing in the U.S. is reported to be about $123 billion (File, Prince, andCermak 1994). In the U.S., about 80 million adults reported sometype of volunteer activity during 1993 with accumulated volunteer-ing estimated as equivalent to 10 million full-time jobs. Valued at aminimum rate, volunteers, were they paid, would have earned about$150 billion, or five percent of GNP (Drucker 1989).

Walter Wymer is affiliated with the Indiana University.Glen Riecken and Ugur Yavas are affiliated with East Tennessee State Uni-

versity.Address correspondence to: Dr. Glen Riecken, Box 70625, East Tennessee

State University, Johnson City, TN 37614.

Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, Vol. 4(4) 1996E 1996 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 3

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Univ

ersi

ty o

f L

ethbri

dge]

at

14:5

8 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2011

JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING4

On both individual and organizational levels, volunteerism isimportant to quality of life and the successful attainment of thegoals of nonprofit organizations depend on volunteers (Unger1991). Not surprisingly, informed observers of the volunteeringscene predict a sharp rise in the number of volunteers needed byNPOs. However, a number of factors, perhaps the most important ofwhich is dwindling discretionary time, pose threats to the ability ofNPOs to attract volunteers. As more women enter the workforceand the number of dual career families increase, discretionary timeavailable for volunteering is curtailed. The baby boomlet of the1980s further erodes discretionary time for parents. Formation ofsingle parent households and delayed retirements also shrink thevolunteer pool. Additionally, growing emphasis on pursuit of hedo-nistic leisure diminishes the time that adults might otherwise allo-cate to volunteerism.Compounding the waning popular interest in becoming volun-

teers is the high turnover among current volunteers. Today, volun-teer agencies with meager resources must compete with each otherfor the available pool of volunteers.A greater understanding of volunteer participation is important

for allowing nonprofit marketers to perform their marketing activi-ties more effectively. Previous research concentrated on findingdemographic correlates that distinguished volunteers from non-vol-unteers (Schram and Dunsing 1981; Yavas and Riecken 1985;Schlegelmilch and Tynan 1989; Yavas, Riecken, and Babakus1993). While nonprofit marketers and managers may be in a some-what better position to identify potential volunteers as a result ofprevious research, NPOs still need to know what factors influencepeople’s volunteer participation. Such knowledge could benefitnonprofit managers in structuring their recruitment, selection, place-ment, training, motivation, and retention efforts.

Purpose

With this in mind, the purpose of this paper is to integrate exist-ing research on volunteerism gathered from various disciplines intoa parsimonious framework. In addition, a future research agenda isdeveloped.This review covers previous work on the determinants of volun-

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Univ

ersi

ty o

f L

ethbri

dge]

at

14:5

8 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2011

Wymer, Riecken, and Yavas 5

tary participation which is distinct from the widespread demographicresearch on volunteers. Demographic findings will not be empha-sized here for two reasons. First, regular national surveys by theIndependent Sector, the Census Bureau, and the Bureau of LaborStatistics have consistently found that volunteers are overrepresent-ed by white, middle class, well educated, middle-aged adults infamilies with at least one child (Gerard 1985). This information isreadily available (INDEPENDENT SECTOR 1988, 1992, 1994).While demographic data continues to be a part of most studies,findings remain generally consistent across studies (Berger 1991;Smith 1994).Second, the interest in this review is on the determinants of

voluntary participation. The research community is becoming in-creasingly interested in obtaining knowledge about causal factors ofparticipation, not demographic correlates. Therefore, the interest onvoluntary participation is most concerned with finding variables orcategories of variables that suggest a causal relationship with partic-ipation. Demographic findings will be discussed in general termsunder the rubric of the efficacy factor presented later in this review.The organization of this review will attempt to include the total-

ity of the volunteer participatory experience within a parsimoniousand meaningful framework as shown in Figure 1. First, person-re-lated variables will be presented. This section will present findingsthat pertain to the individual volunteer in terms of personality, val-ues, and attitudes. Second, social variables will be presented. Thissection reviews findings that pertain to social influences on thevolunteer. Third, findings related to efficacy will be presented.Fourth, findings on contextual-related variables will be covered.This section discusses findings pertaining to environmental forcesoutside the volunteer and the volunteer’s social institutions.

PERSON-RELATED VARIABLES

Personality

Partially owing to a sociological perspective in most previousresearch (Smith 1994), not much is known about the personalitycharacteristics of volunteers (Miller 1985; Lafer 1989; Omoto andSnyder 1993).

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Univ

ersi

ty o

f L

ethbri

dge]

at

14:5

8 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2011


FIGURE 1. Determinants of Volunteerism

Person

S Personality

S Values

S Attitudes

Social Interac-tions

S Previous

S Current

S Anticipated

Efficacy

S Skill utili-zation

S Skill devel-opment

Contextual

S Time

S Money

S Psychological

Decision

to

Volunteer

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Univ

ersi

ty o

f L

ethbri

dge]

at

14:5

8 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2011


A review of personality characteristics of mental health workersby Allen and Rushton (1983) found that volunteers tended to becharacterized by empathy, morality, and emotional stability. Gener-ally, studies using personality variables to discriminate volunteersfrom non-volunteers have largely been unsuccessful (Hobfoll 1980;Yavas, Riecken, and Parameswaran 1981; Heidrich 1988).

Values

Values, compared with attitudes, offer promise in understandingvoluntary participation because: (1) there are fewer values, (2) val-ues determine attitudes, (3) values have a motivational component,and (4) value changes are more enduring and affect behavior morethan attitude changes (Rokeach 1973; Williams 1979).Values has proven to be a good discriminator of volunteers and

non-volunteers (Manzer 1974; Heidrich 1988). Volunteers tend toplace more importance on prosocial values (Killeen and McCarrey1986; McClintock and Allison 1989). For example, Hobfoll (1980)found that volunteers were significantly discriminated by socialresponsibility. Mahoney and Pechura (1980) compared responses ofthe Rokeach Value Survey (RVS) between telephone hotline volun-teers and a control group and found that twelve values discrimi-nated the two groups. Williams (1987) also used the RVS to mea-sure values. In his study of volunteers working with people withmental retardation, Williams found that values were able to differ-entiate volunteers from the general public. Other studies have alsofound values to be good discriminators of volunteers with non-vol-unteers (Hougland and Christenson 1982; Williams and Ortega1986).Previous research has consistently reported that volunteers want

to help others (INDEPENDENT SECTOR 1988, 1992). This re-search indicates that helping others provides prosocial value. Thesefindings have been controversial, as academicians argue whethervolunteers are demonstrating pure altruism (Gerard 1985) or areacting from only self-interest (Titmus 1971; Pinker 1979; Smith1981). Agreement for a moderate position on this discussion iscentering on perceiving volunteers as demonstrating both altruisticand egoistic behaviors (Wiehe and Isenhour 1977; Frisch and Ger-rard 1981; King 1984; Steiner 1984; Van Til 1985; Cnaan and

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Univ

ersi

ty o

f L

ethbri

dge]

at

14:5

8 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2011


Goldberg-Glen 1991). For example, some volunteers seem drivenby a sense of altruism such as helping the terminally ill or assistingindigents who may be humiliated and resentful rather than grateful(Rubin and Thorelli 1984, Lafer 1989). However, volunteers whowant to help others also want volunteering to provide them with arewarding experience. For instance, Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen(1991) compared 258 volunteer and 104 non-volunteer responseson 28 motivation items from previous studies and concluded thatvolunteers act from a combination of motives that can be describedoverall as a ‘‘rewarding experience.’’Previous research on volunteer motivations consistently finds

that people who volunteer do so as a means of manifesting strongly-held beliefs. In a national survey of AIDS volunteers, attitude mea-sures were aggregated to a higher level of abstraction to determinewhat functions attitudes served for the volunteer (Omoto and Snyder1990, 1993). The strongest function was interpreted to be ‘‘valueexpressive.’’ The respondents felt that volunteering allowed them toact upon their underlying values, to be their true selves (Snyder andDebono 1987). Okun and Eisenberg (1992) used a similar method-ology to study the motives of 262 senior volunteers. After factoranalyzing 13 scale items into three factors, they interpreted one ofthe three as ‘‘value expressive.’’Participating in a voluntary agency provides an individual with a

means of expressing important values as well as a means of rein-forcing those values (Hougland and Christenson 1982). However,the measurement of values has been inconsistent. Some studiesrelied on measures of social responsibility (Hobfoll 1980; Omotoand Snyder 1993), personal value systems (Mahoney and Pechura1980; Williams 1987), moral responsibility (Waldron, Baron, Freese,and Sabrini 1988; Okun 1994), and civic duty (Cook 1984; Florin,Jones, and Wanderson 1986).Since each person has a value system, what distinguishes indi-

viduals is the relative importance placed on specific values. Forexample, Williams (1987) examined the values of student volun-teers and non-volunteers and discovered the importance studentsplaced on certain values in their personal lives was the best predic-tor of volunteer interest.The highest ranked values within an individual’s value system

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Univ

ersi

ty o

f L

ethbri

dge]

at

14:5

8 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2011


will have the greatest influence on attitudes and actions. This proce-dural ranking of values within a value system explains why peoplewho agree that certain values are good behave in quite differentmanners--behavior is most consistent with the most important val-ues. Volunteers and non-volunteers alike would probably agree thathelping others is a good idea. However, volunteers would probablyrank helping others higher than non-volunteers.Moral-Civic Duty. Volunteers frequently report a sense of moral

responsibility or a sense of duty as a motive (Gerard 1985; Bequette1990). In one study of local government volunteers in an eight townarea of New Hampshire, the most important reason given for volun-teering was a sense of public or civic duty (Luloff, Chittenden,Weeks, and Brushett 1984). Similarly, Widmer (1985) found thatboard members reported it was their civic duty to volunteer. Otherstudies have reported findings that volunteers feel a moral obliga-tion or a sense of duty to participate (Cook 1984; Florin, Jones, andWandersman 1986; Friedman, Florin, Wandersman, and Meier1988; Okun 1994).Religious Beliefs. Opportunities to express religious beliefs and

values are provided through many volunteer roles (Wood and Hou-gland 1990). In a national survey of charitable giving and volun-teering, the third highest ranked motive was expressing religiousbeliefs or responding to a moral obligation based on religious be-liefs (Hodgkinson 1990; Hodgkinson and Weitzman 1990). Period-ic national surveys of U.S. giving and volunteering continuallyreport a relationship between religious involvement and volunteer-ing (INDEPENDENT SECTOR 1990, 1992). The 1981 EuropeanValues Survey conducted by Gallup using a British sample reporteda similarly important relationship between religious commitmentand volunteering (Gerard 1985).A longitudinal study by Wineburg (1994) reported that religious

congregations were intensifying their involvement in social ser-vices in response to declining government support. Among volun-tary action researchers, there is a general consensus that an impor-tant relationship exists between religious beliefs and voluntaryparticipation (Berger 1991). Hodgkinson (1990) suggested that thefuture success of the nonprofit sector is dependent on this relation-ship.

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Univ

ersi

ty o

f L

ethbri

dge]

at

14:5

8 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2011


Attitudes

According to Rokeach (1968, p. 159), ‘‘An attitude is an orga-nization of several beliefs focused on a specific object (physical orsocial, concrete or abstract) or situation, predisposing one to re-spond in some preferential manner. Unfortunately, there is an incon-sistent use of the attitude construct in previous research. For exam-ple, in his 1994 literature review, Smith includes values, politicalefficacy, civic duty, perceived benefits relative to costs, and purpo-sive incentives as attitudes. Future research should be careful todefine and differentiate important concepts.Attitudes have been used to help discriminate volunteers from

non-volunteers in specific situations. Yavas, Riecken and Parame-swaren (1981) reported that respondent attitude towards UnitedWay was helpful in discriminating non-donors from respondentswho had made a donation to United Way in the previous two years.Other studies show that attitudes towards specific organizations ortowards a specific organization’s policies were useful in discrimi-nating non-volunteers from volunteers (Smith 1994).By using Katz’s functional approach to attitudes, Omoto and

Snyder (1993) conducted a national survey of AIDS volunteers.From their study the value expression function emerged as theprominent attitude function. It is this function from which individu-als derive satisfactions by expressing attitudes appropriate to theirpersonal values and to their concepts of themselves (Rokeach1973). Okun (1994) reported similar findings using a sample ofsenior volunteers.However, since attitudes are directed at specific objects, their use

in differentiating all volunteers from all non-volunteers is necessari-ly limited. Attitudes are also limited in predicting volunteer partici-pation because of the potential confounding effects of situationalfactors inherent in any volunteer experience. For example, in orderto predict participation using attitudes, not only must the attitude forthe target organization be measured, but so must the attitude for thevolunteer role, organizational client, volunteer supervisor, and soforth.It is also doubtful if attitude can be useful to nonprofit marketers

in developing recruitment messages. For example, people may havepositive attitudes towards the Red Cross or the Girl Scouts and not

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Univ

ersi

ty o

f L

ethbri

dge]

at

14:5

8 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2011


have any desire to volunteer for these organizations. In a nationalsurvey, Brudney and Brown (1990) found that recruitment was atop priority among volunteer administrators. Clary et al. (1994)indicated that much more needs to be known about effective recruit-ment appeals. They reported that, while most people are favorablydisposed towards volunteering, they fail to act. Reasons given fornot volunteering are unrelated to the organization--for example,people are too busy or having health problems.

SOCIAL VARIABLES

Even though person-related variables have been shown to be animportant aspect of voluntary participation, they are insufficient toexplain volunteerism (Hougland and Christenson 1982). Participa-tion seems, in part, to be also determined by social influences(Schindler-Rainman and Lippitt 1971; Babchuk and Booth 1969;Shure 1988).Friends, family members, and others who are part of an individu-

al’s social networks can exert varying degrees of influence on vol-untary participation. Social influences provide incentives or disin-centives for an individual’s volunteer behavior by supporting,failing to support, or discouraging the behavior of volunteering(Clary et al. 1994). Previous literature regarding the relationshipbetween social variables and voluntary participation can be catego-rized into three parts: influences from an individual’s (1) previousand (2) current social groups, and (3) expectations of future rela-tionships.

Previous Social Influences

Smith and Baldwin (1974) found that parental attitudes aboutvolunteering influenced their children’s participation when the chil-dren became adults. Volunteers are more likely than non-volunteersto have had parents who were themselves volunteer participants(Shure 1988).

Current Social Influences

In addition to a family-of-origin influencing participation, anindividual’s procreative family also influences volunteering. For

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Univ

ersi

ty o

f L

ethbri

dge]

at

14:5

8 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2011


example, as children progress through their school-age years, theiractivities encourage parental volunteering in various organizations(Schiff 1990; Berger 1991; Smith 1994). Previous research supportsthis idea, reporting that volunteers tend to have more children thannon-volunteers (Edwards and White 1980; INDEPENDENT SEC-TOR 1988, 1992). Dempsey (1988) reported similar findings in herstudy of alumni of a women’s college. Dunn (1988) surveyed 525young group leaders and found the typical volunteer had youngchildren. (Also see Gerard 1985; Bequette 1990.)Married people are more likely to participate than non-married

people (Luloff et al. 1984; Auslander and Litwin 1988; Hodgkin-son, Weitzman et al. 1992; Fischer and Schaffer 1993). However,when non-married people volunteer they tend to give more of theirtime (Berger 1991). One study reported that women having hus-bands on agency boards were more likely to volunteer (Dempsey1988). Schram and Dunsing (1981) reported that husbands’ atti-tudes about working outside the home influenced wives’ participa-tion.Yavas and Riecken (1985) found that volunteers, compared to

non-volunteers, felt less influenced by family/job demands on theirtime. For example, if an individual’s spouse is very critical abouttime spent away from the home volunteering, then the individual isless likely to volunteer than someone in the opposite circumstance.A study of rescue squad volunteers found that their families werevery supportive of their volunteering (Gora and Nemerowicz 1991).Other studies have supported the importance of social influences

on voluntary participation. For example, people are more likely tovolunteer if personally asked (Berger 1991; INDEPENDENT SEC-TOR 1988, 1992). They are also more likely to volunteer if a friendor family member is involved in the voluntary organization (Adams1980; Hougland and Wood 1980; Widmer 1985; Rohs 1986; Love-lock and Weinberg 1989; Perkins 1989; Bequette 1990).Many people who are otherwise predisposed to volunteer require

only to be asked by another person to begin participation. Morepeople think volunteering is a good idea than actually volunteer;people generally have favorable dispositions about volunteering(Fischer and Schaffer 1993; Clary et al. 1994). Apparently, somepeople require only a minimal amount of coaxing to behave in a

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Univ

ersi

ty o

f L

ethbri

dge]

at

14:5

8 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2011


manner consistent with their positive feelings about volunteering.Nonprofit marketing could benefit greatly by learning more aboutthe reluctant volunteer, the volunteer who is predisposed to volun-teer but waits until asked by another person.Social networks outside the family influence participation. Indi-

viduals are more likely to volunteer in circumstances in whichvolunteering is esteemed by others than in circumstances in whichvolunteering is disdained and ridiculed (Schindler-Rainman andLippitt 1971). Shure (1988) found that the Big Brother volunteers inhis study believed that their volunteer work was esteemed in theircommunity. In their study of AIDS volunteers, Omoto and Snyder(1993) found that some volunteers reported an esteem-enhancementmotive.Another manner in which friends influence participation occurs

when two or more friends choose to become volunteers together, atthe same time (Heshka 1983). This reciprocal social support rela-tionship has received little research attention and is not well under-stood.People in smaller, rural communities are more likely to volunteer

than their counterparts (Curtis, Grabb, and Baer 1992; Sundeen1992). Luloff et al. (1984), however, reported no significant differ-ence between community size and participation. The length of timeresiding in a community is correlated with participation (Berger1991).People receiving (or who have received) services from a volunteer

agency are more likely to volunteer than their counterparts (Adams1980; Hodgkinson and Weitzman 1986; Hodgkinson, Weitzman,Noga, and Gorski 1992).Church attendance/membership has also been consistently corre-

lated with voluntary participation (Gerard 1985; Hodgkinson, Weitz-man, and Kirsch 1990; Cnaan, Kasternakis, and Wineburg 1993;Fischer and Schaffer 1993).

Future Social Associations

Future or anticipated associations resulting from volunteeringcan exert influence. Some voluntary roles require the establishmentof a relationship between the direct service provider and servicerecipient. Many volunteer roles facilitate interaction with other volun-

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Univ

ersi

ty o

f L

ethbri

dge]

at

14:5

8 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2011


teers. The perceived desirability an individual places on the inter-personal associations could be expected to have some influence onthe decision to volunteer. Unfortunately, little is known about therelationship between the expected interpersonal interaction withother volunteers and clients on participation. There is some evi-dence in the literature that older people, especially widowed se-niors, view volunteering as one way to be around other people. Theprospect of making new friends is also a motivator for participationfor some (Gillespie and King 1985).

EFFICACY

Efficacy, as used here, refers to people’s perceptions of their ownbundles of skills, talents, and competencies. Efficacy is reinforcedand generalized by feedback from society. For example, certainoccupations or social positions are rewarded financially and social-ly. Used thus, groups with high levels of efficacy could be expectedto have internal loci of control, feeling in greater control of theirlives than their counterparts.

Demonstrated Efficacy

In discussing citizen participation, Moe (1980) suggested that asa precondition to participating people need to believe that theirefforts will make a tangible difference in the collective good pro-vided by an organization. Previous demographic research repeated-ly found that volunteers are likely to be well-educated, middle-classpersons with professional (or other socially-prominent) occupation-al status who, in terms of race or ethnicity, represent the majority ofAmerican and European volunteers (Gerard 1985; Dempsey 1988;Dunn 1988; Lafer 1989; O’Connor and Johnson 1989; Schlegel-milch and Tynan 1989; INDEPENDENT SECTOR 1988, 1992).These volunteers are likely characterized by a greater sense ofefficacy, perceiving their abilities and talents to be useful to volun-teer organizations (Allen and Rushton 1983; Miller 1985; Florin,Jones, and Wandersman 1986; Brown and Zahrly 1989; Smith1994). Some volunteers look for voluntary organizations and volun-teer roles that can make direct use of their abilities (Widmer 1985).

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Univ

ersi

ty o

f L

ethbri

dge]

at

14:5

8 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2011


Volunteers tend to have positive self-images, feeling capable andcompetent (Gerard 1985; Fischer and Schaffer 1993; Okun 1994).Miller (1985) reported that volunteers’ participation was influencedby the extent to which they felt in control of their lives. Auslanderand Litwin (1988) found that the lowest rates of participation wereby persons who were laid-off, on strike or disabled. One plausibleexplanation for these groups’ very low participation rates is thatthey share a low sense of efficacy.Previous research supports the idea that volunteers, in general,

are more engaged in various activities than non-volunteers, suggest-ing that volunteers are characterized as leading active lifestyles(Smith 1969; Smith, Macaulay, and Associates 1980; Chambre1987; Hodgkinson, Weitzman, Noga, and Gorski 1992). Gerard’s(1985) national survey in Great Britain also discovered that volun-teers had better health, found greater meaning in life, expressed agreater preference for active pursuits and were self-assured.

Desired Efficacy

In contrast to the dominant group of volunteers who want to usetheir skills, demonstrating their efficacy, other groups of volunteersseek to enhance their efficacy through voluntary participation(Smith 1981; Rubin and Thorelli 1984).One group volunteering, in part, to enhance their efficacy is the

elderly. While some retired professionals apply their experiencesand skills as volunteers, other elderly volunteers desire to enhancetheir efficacy, perceiving volunteering as a means to feel moreuseful and productive (Okun and Eisenberg 1992; Fischer andSchaffer 1993; Okun 1994).Another group who perceives participation as a means of en-

hancing its efficacy is comprised of those seeking skill acquisition.This group is typically represented by people entering/re-enteringthe work force and desiring a career change. They share a commondesire to acquire credentials, skills, knowledge, or experience thatwill facilitate attractive employment (Gillespie and King 1985).Gora and Nemerowicz (1991) studied rescue squad volunteers andfound that some were motivated to participate in order to obtainmedical training that could be transferred to occupational objec-

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Univ

ersi

ty o

f L

ethbri

dge]

at

14:5

8 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2011


tives. Schram and Dunsing (1981) reported that young femalehomemakers’ volunteer work enabled them to gain job experience.

CONTEXTUAL BARRIERS

Contextual barriers (situations external to the person) can inhibitor impede one’s desire to volunteer. For example, an organizationmay require a minimum time commitment that exceeds the maxi-mum time the recruit is willing to donate. Many non-volunteers feelthat they do not have sufficient free time (Cnaan, Kasternakis, andWineburg 1993; Clary et al. 1994). An organization may be locatedtoo distant for the recruit to consider feasible. Heidrich (1988)suggests that a person could live where there may be no organiza-tion which matches with the person’s values.There may be other barriers. For example, volunteers absorb a

certain amount of out-of-pocket expenses related to volunteering.Additionally, a potential volunteer may forgo opportunities to earnincome during the time donated to a voluntary organization, therebyincreasing the opportunity costs associated with volunteering (Ra-dos 1981; Lovelock and Weinberg 1989). Another contextual barri-er can be the perceived or actual physical requirements of volun-teering. While volunteers tend to report being in good or excellenthealth (Shure 1988), poor health has demonstrated to be a deterrentto volunteering (Fischer and Schaffer 1993).Psychological or emotional demands may also present contextual

barriers to volunteering. Many human service volunteers must workin psychologically demanding circumstances, helping needy clientswho give no positive feedback in return. Recipients of human ser-vice agencies can feel humiliation, responding to the direct servicevolunteer with resentment instead of appreciation (Rubin and Tho-relli 1984). Some people participate as hospice volunteers, assistingterminally ill people prior to their deaths. Hospice volunteers mustbe capable of dealing with the powerful emotions surrounding hu-man death (Lafer 1989). Other volunteers help people with AIDS(Omoto and Snyder 1993). These volunteers have to deal with theirfeelings about the person their helping, the person-with-AIDS’death, and possible fear of contracting HIV (Omoto and Snyder1990).

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Univ

ersi

ty o

f L

ethbri

dge]

at

14:5

8 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2011


FUTURE RESEARCH

Although much has been learned about why people participate involuntary organizations, more needs to be known. Smith (1994)claims that the scope of most studies is generally too narrow, refer-ring to the tendency to examine a small group of variables con-tained within one or two determinant factors. Studies examiningvolunteer participation at a higher level of abstraction is needed toobtain a better understanding of the relative importance of factorsand the interaction among them.Typically, research has progressed by examining the effects of a

variety of variables on voluntary participation outside of a theoreti-cal framework. It is hoped that the framework used in this reviewcan help to guide subsequent research. A unifying framework isvery helpful in underscoring gaps in our knowledge as well as inhelping to integrate disparate studies being performed across aca-demic disciplines.Another difficulty with much of the previous research is that the

sample of volunteers tends to be limited to a single organization ororganization type, limiting the generalizability of the findings(Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen 1991). As a consequence, we knowlittle about how volunteers in the various categories of the thirdsector differ and whether findings in one setting can be generalizedto other settings.Finally, the lack of a unifying theory embodying concepts from a

variety of disciplines detracts from the appeal of studies dealingwith volunteerism. The synthesis presented in this paper suggeststhat while volunteerism has long intrigued scholars from diversedisciplines such as social psychology, marketing, human resourcesmanagement, etc., there is a definite paucity of research groundedon a cross-fertilization of ideas and concepts from these seeminglydisparate fields.In addition to conducting future research that addresses these

types of drawbacks in previous research, there are also numerousquestions that need to be examined. Figure 2 presents some of thesequestions for future research.

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Univ

ersi

ty o

f L

ethbri

dge]

at

14:5

8 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2011


FIGURE 2. Research Questions

Determinant

Variable Research Questions

Person 1) Which value paradigm best describes volunteers?

2) Are values expressed through volunteerism consistent across vol-

unteer roles? If not, what framework would best explain differ-

ences?

3) What value measurement tool is most useful?

4) Do volunteers’ values change with experience? If so, what impact

does this have on future volunteering activities?

5) Will claims focusing on important values that can be expressed

through volunteer work enhance recruitment?

6) Can non-volunteers be recruited by highlighting an inconsistency

between pro-social values and failure to volunteer?

Social 1) What is the relationship between parental volunteering and children

volunteering as adolescents or after reaching adulthood? Do chil-

dren see volunteering as a rewarding experience? Are children

inculcated with values which are conducive to volunteering?

2) Should NPOs communicate with children to demonstrate the impor-

tance of volunteer work? If so, how should this be done? What

role, if any, should educators play in the process?

3) What effects on volunteering are there from circumstances of child-

hood? Does community size play a significant role? Will the

growing poverty rate among children lead to adults who volunteer

or to adults who require services?

4) To what extent is volunteering enhanced when two or more friends/

relatives volunteer together? How important is a reciprocal social

support system? What is the nature of the causal relationship? Do

individuals get a greater supply of credible information from partici-

pating friends or family members that influences the individual deci-

sion process? Do individuals believe that as volunteers, they will

be alongside others (like their friends and family members) who

share similar values, providing an indication that the participation

will allow an expression of important values? Is the relationship one

of social support? Do volunteers rely on friends and family to

reduce the anxiety associated with the uncertainties of beginning a

(continued)

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Univ

ersi

ty o

f L

ethbri

dge]

at

14:5

8 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2011


new, unfamiliar activity? What is the relationship between having

a friend or family member in an organization and the volunteer’s

performance and attrition? What proportion of volunteers begin

their participation with a friend in order to receive reciprocal sup-

port? If this type of social support is needed by some individuals to

ease the transition into the volunteer role, would volunteer admin-

istrators benefit by establishing a mentoring program to encultu-

rate the new volunteer into the organization? Should marketers

communicate to potential volunteers that the uncertainties of be-

coming a volunteer are understood by the NPO and will be re-

duced by empathetic others?

5) How effective are appeals emphasizing the interpersonal benefits

of volunteering?

6) Why are community size and length of residence correlated with

volunteer activity? Is the need for volunteering more visible in

smaller communities? Are recipients more likely to be known to

the volunteer and thus enhancing the need to help one’s neigh-

bors? Do residents of smaller communities accept greater respon-

sibility for assisting others?

7) What relationship exists between receiving services at one time

and volunteering later? Does the receiving of services enculturate

the individual into the social network resulting in a desire to contin-

ue in the network at another level once the need for receiving

services is no longer there? Does becoming a volunteer decrease

feelings of powerlessness that may have been instilled by the

experience of receiving services?

8) Why is church membership related to volunteering? Do members

express religious feeling through volunteering or are social in-

fluences within the church a greater determinant? Are both deter-

minant? If so, how do they interact? Do they differently affect

different volunteer roles or organizations?

9) What are the characteristics of the reluctant volunteer segment?

Are they demographically homogeneous? How do they compare

to active volunteers and to chronic non-donors? What is the prime

inhibiting factor that precludes their volunteering? Once volun-

teers, how does their performance compare to other volunteers?

Do they exhibit a greater turnover?

Efficacy 1) Do non-volunteers feel less competent and capable than volun-

teers? Are they inhibited by a perception that they possess few

skills or competencies of use to voluntary agencies?

(continued)

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Univ

ersi

ty o

f L

ethbri

dge]

at

14:5

8 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2011


FIGURE 2 (continued)

2) What is the relationship between being a member of a minority,

disenfranchised, or low socio-economic group and participation?

3) What affect does acquiring skills as a volunteer have on the dura-

tion and intensity of participation? Should recruitment commu-

nications emphasize that volunteering has the benefit of enhanc-

ing a person’s efficacy?

Context 1) What is the relationship between contextual barriers and participa-

tion?

2) What psychological contextual barriers exist? How may recruiters

overcome these barriers?

3) Should recruitment communications minimize or counter contextu-

al barriers that non-volunteers report as inhibitors? Does minimiz-

ing contextual barriers distort expectations of new volunteers,

leading to increased turnover?

4) Why do non-volunteers choose not to volunteer?

CONCLUSION

NPOs have been and still are an important part of our society.Although NPOs always performed marketing functions, they haveonly recently received major attention from marketing researchers.Nonprofit marketing has been accepted as an important field inmarketing research, but the time is ripe to go beyond the descrip-tive/normative studies to more in-depth analysis. A central concernis research on volunteer behavior.Volunteers are essential for many NPOs. Previous work on vol-

unteers among marketing researchers has focused on demographicdifferentiation of volunteers and non-volunteers. However, know-ing that the volunteer tends to be a person of above-average incomeand education who is middle-aged or slightly younger and domesti-cally settled with a spouse and child is insufficient for the NPO inattracting the best volunteers with the requisite skills (O’Connorand Johnson 1989). Demographic findings are important in identi-fying potential volunteers for target marketing. However, the man-ager must also know what factors influence volunteers in order toconstruct and deliver the most effective marketing appeals. It is

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Univ

ersi

ty o

f L

ethbri

dge]

at

14:5

8 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2011


hoped that this review will acquaint marketing researchers withwhat is known about influences acting on an individual’s decisionto volunteer across academic disciplines. It is also hoped that thisreview will stimulate interest for additional studies that could in-crease our knowledge of this important area. The usefulness ofstudies regarding volunteer behavior is more important than everbecause of societal changes that are making volunteer recruitmentmore challenging than ever before.

REFERENCES

Adams, David S. 1980. ‘‘Elite and Lower Volunteers in a Voluntary Association:A Study of an American Red Cross Chapter.’’ Journal of Voluntary ActionResearch 9 (1-4): 95-108.

Allen, N.J. and J.P. Rushton 1983. ‘‘Personality Characteristics of CommunityMental Health Volunteers: A Review.’’ Journal of Voluntary Action Research12 (1): 36-49.

Auslander, Gail K. and Howard Litwin 1988. ‘‘Sociability and Patterns of Partici-pation Implications for Social Service Policy.’’ Journal of Voluntary ActionResearch 17 (2): 25-37.

Babchuk, Nicolas and Alan Booth 1969. ‘‘Voluntary Association Membership: ALongitudinal Analysis.’’ American Sociological Review 34 (1): 31-45.

Bequette, Cathe 1990. Volunteers on Volunteering: A Narrative Analysis of Inter-views with Red Cross Disaster Volunteers. Masters thesis. Regent University.

Berger, Gabriel 1991. Factors Explaining Volunteering for Organizations in Gen-eral and for Social Welfare Organizations in Particular. Dissertation. HellerSchool of Social Welfare, Brandeis University.

Brown, E.P. and J. Zahrly 1989. ‘‘Nonmonetary Rewards for Skilled VolunteerLabor.’’ Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 18 (2): 167-177.

Chambre, Susan M. 1987. Good Deeds in Old Age: Volunteering by the NewLeisure Class. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Clary, E. Gil, Mark Snyder, John T. Copeland, and Simone A. French 1994.‘‘Promoting Volunteerism: An Empirical Examination of the Appeal of Per-suasive Messages.’’ Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 23 (3): 265-280.

Cnaan, Ram A. and Roben S. Goldberg-Glen 1991. ‘‘Measuring Motivation toVolunteer in Human Services.’’ Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences 27 (3,Sept): 269-284.

, Amy Kasternakis, and Robert J. Wineburg 1993. ‘‘Religious People,Religious Congregations, and Volunteerism in Human Services: Is There aLink?’’ Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 22 (1, Spring): 33-51.

Cook, Constance Ewing 1984. ‘‘Participation in Public Interest Groups.’’ Ameri-can Politics Quarterly 12 (4): 409-430.

Curtis, J. E., E. Grabb, and D. Baer 1992. ‘‘Voluntary Association Membership in

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Univ

ersi

ty o

f L

ethbri

dge]

at

14:5

8 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2011


Fifteen Countries: A Comparative Analysis.’’ American Sociological Review57: 139-152.

Dempsey, Norah Peters 1988. Women and Volunteerism: An Examination of theChanging Patterns, Types and Motivations. Dissertation. Bryn Mawr College.

Drucker, Peter F. 1989. ‘‘What Business Can Learn from Nonprofits.’’ HarvardBusiness Review (July-August): 88-93.

Dunn, Terrence Herbert 1988. Volunteers and Predictable Motivations. Disserta-tion. Colorado State University.

Edwards, John N. and Randall White 1980. ‘‘Predictors of Social Participation:Apparent or Real.’’ Journal of Voluntary Action Research 9: 60-73.

File, Karen Mary, Russ Alan Prince, and Dianne S.P. Cermak 1994. ‘‘CreatingTrust with Major Donors: The Service Encounter Model.’’ Nonprofit Manage-ment & Leadership 4 (3, Spring): 269-283.

Fischer, Lucy Rose and Kay Banister Schaffer 1993. Older Volunteers: A Guide toResearch and Practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Florin, Paul, E. Jones, and Abraham Wandersman 1986. ‘‘Black Participation inVoluntary Associations.’’ Journal of Voluntary Action Research 15 (1): 65-86.

Friedman, Robert R., Paul Florin, Abraham Wandersman, and R. Meier 1988.‘‘Local Action on Behalf of Local Collectives in the United States and Israel:How different are Leaders from Members in Voluntary Associations?’’ Jour-nal of Voluntary Action Research 17 (3-4): 36-54.

Frisch, Michael B. and Meg Gerrard 1981. ‘‘Natural Helping Systems: A Surveyof Red Cross Volunteers.’’ American Journal of Community Psychology 9(October): 567-579.

Gerard, David 1985. ‘‘What Makes a Volunteer?’’ New Society 74 (Nov 8):236-238.

Gillespie, David F. and Anthony E. O. King I 1985. ‘‘Demographic Understand-ing of Volunteerism.’’ Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 12 (4, Decem-ber): 798-816.

Gora, Jo Ann and Gloria Nemerowicz 1991. ‘‘Volunteers: Initial and SustainingMotivations in Service to the Community.’’ Research in the Sociology ofHealth Care 9: 233-246.

Heshka, S. 1983. ‘‘Situational Variables Affecting Participation in VoluntaryAssociations.’’ In International Perspectives of Voluntary Action Research.Eds. David H. Smith and Jon Van Til. Washington, D.C.: University Press ofAmerica.

Hobfoll, Steven E. 1980. ‘‘Personal Characteristics of the College Volunteer.’’American Journal of Community Psychology 8 (4): 503-506.

Hodgkinson, Virginia A. 1990. Motivations for Giving and Volunteering. NewYork: The Foundation Center.

and Murray Weitzman 1986. Dimensions of the Independent Sector.2nd Ed. Washington, D.C.: Independent Sector.

and 1990. Giving and Volunteering in the United States.Findings from a National Survey. 1990 Edition. Washington, DC: IndependentSector.

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Univ

ersi

ty o

f L

ethbri

dge]

at

14:5

8 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2011


, , and Arthur D. Kirsch 1990. ‘‘From Commitment to Action:How Religious Involvement Affects Giving and Volunteering.’’ In Faith andPhilanthropy in America: Exploring the Role of Religion in America’s Volun-tary Sector. Eds. Robert Wuthow, Virginia A. Hodgkinson, and Associates.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 93-114.

, , S.M. Noga, and H.A. Gorski 1992. Giving and Volunteeringin the United States: 1992 Edition.Washington, D.C.: Independent Sector.

Hougland, James G., Jr. and James A. Christenson 1982. ‘‘Voluntary Organiza-tions and Dominant American Values.’’ Journal of Voluntary Action Research11 (4): 6-26.

and James R. Wood 1980. ‘‘Correlates of Participation in LocalChurches.’’ Sociological Focus 13 (4): 343-358.

INDEPENDENT SECTOR 1988. Volunteering and Giving in the United States:Findings From a National Survey. Washington, DC: Author.

1992. Volunteering and Giving in the United States: Findings From a

National Survey. Washington, DC: Author.

1994. Volunteering and Giving in the United States: Findings From a

National Survey. Washington, DC: Author.Killeen, Joanne and Michael McCarrey 1986. ‘‘Relations of Altruistic Versus

Competitive Values, Course of Study, and Behavioral Intentions to Help orCompete.’’ Psychological Reports 59 (2): 895-898.

King, Anthony E. 1984. ‘‘Volunteer Participations: An Analysis of the ReasonsPeople Give for Volunteering.’’ Dissertation Abstracts International 45 (5):1528-A.

Lafer, Barbara Helene 1989. Predicting Satisfactoriness and Persistence in Hos-pice Volunteers. Dissertation. Seton Hall University.

Lovelock, Christopher H. and Charles B. Weinberg 1978. ‘‘Public and NonprofitMarketing Comes of Age.’’ Review of Marketing 1978. American MarketingAssociation: 413-52.

Luloff, A.E., W.H. Chittenden, E. Kriss, S. Weeks, and L. Brushett 1984. ‘‘LocalVolunteerism in New Hampshire: Who, Why, and at What Benefit.’’ Journal ofthe Community Development Society 15 (2): 17-30.

Mahoney, John and Constance M. Pechura 1980. ‘‘Values and Volunteers: Axiolo-gy of Altruism in a Crisis Center.’’ Psychological Reports 47 (3, pt 1):1007-1012.

Manzer, Leslie Lee 1974. Charitable Health Organization Donor Behavior: AnEmpirical Study of Value and Attitude Structure. Dissertation. Oklahoma StateUniversity.

McClintock, Charles G. and Scott T. Allison 1989. ‘‘Social Value Orientation andHelping Behavior.’’ Journal of Applied Psychology 19 (4): 353-362.

Miller, Lynn E. 1985. ‘‘Understanding the Motivation of Volunteers: An Ex-amination of Personality Differences and Characteristics of Volunteers’ PaidEmployment.’’ Journal of Voluntary Action Research 14 (2-3): 112-122.

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Univ

ersi

ty o

f L

ethbri

dge]

at

14:5

8 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2011


Moe, Terry M. 1980. ‘‘A Calculus of Group Membership.’’ American Journal ofPolitical Science 24 (4): 593-632.

O’Connor, Robert J. and Rebecca S. Johnson 1989. ‘‘Volunteer Demographicsand Future Prospects for Volunteering.’’ In The Future of the Nonprofit Sector:Challenges, Changes, and Policy Considerations. Eds. Virginia A. Hodgkin-son, Richard W. Lyman, and Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 403-415.

Okun, Morris A. 1994. ‘‘The Relation Between Motives for Organizational Vol-unteering and the Frequency of Volunteering by Elders.’’ The Journal of Ap-plied Gerontology 13 (2, June): 115-126.

and Nancy Eisenberg 1992. ‘‘Motives and Intent to Continue Organiza-tional Volunteering Among Residents of a Retirement Community Area.’’Journal of Community Psychology 20 (3): 183-187.

Omoto, Allen M. and Mark Snyder 1990. ‘‘Basic Research in Action: Volunteer-ism and Society’s Response to AIDS.’’ Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin 16 (1, March): 152-165.

and 1993. ‘‘AIDS Volunteers and Their Motivations:Theoretical Issues and Practical Concerns.’’ Nonprofit Management & Leader-ship 4 (2, Winter): 157-176.

Perkins, K.B. 1989. ‘‘Volunteer Firefighters in the United States: A DescriptiveStudy.’’ Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 18 (3): 269-277.

Pinker, R. 1979. The Idea of Welfare. London: Heinemann.Rados, David L. 1981. Marketing for Non-profit Organizations. Boston: Auburn

House.Rohs, F.R. 1986. ‘‘Social Background, Personality, and Attitudinal Factors In-

fluencing the Decision to Volunteer and Level of Involvement Among Adult4-H Leaders.’’ Journal of Voluntary Action Research 15 (1): 87-99.

Rokeach, Milton 1968. Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values: A Theory of Organizationand Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

1973. The Nature of Human Values. New York: The Free Press.Rubin, Allen and Irene M. Thorelli 1984. ‘‘Egoistic Motives and Longevity of

Participation by Social Service Volunteers.’’ The Journal of Applied Behavior-al Science 20 (3): 223-235.

Schiff, Jerald 1990. Charitable Giving and Government Policy. An EconomicAnalysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Schindler-Rainman, Eva and Ronald Lippitt 1971. The Volunteer Community.Washington, D.C.: National Learning Resources, Inc.

Schlegelmilch, Bodo B. and Carolyn Tynan 1989. ‘‘Who Volunteers?: An Inves-tigation into the Characteristics of Charity Volunteers.’’ Journal of MarketingManagement 5 (2): 133-151.

Schram, Vicki R. and Marilyn M. Dunsing 1981. ‘‘Influences on MarriedWomen’s Volunteer Work Participation.’’ Journal of Consumer Research 7(March): 372-379.

Shure, Richard S. 1988. The Identification of Those Most Likely to Volunteer:Characteristics of Male Volunteers in the Big Brothers/Big Sisters Program.Dissertation. University of Illinois at Chicago.

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Univ

ersi

ty o

f L

ethbri

dge]

at

14:5

8 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2011


Smith, David H. 1969. ‘‘Evidence for a General Activity Syndrome.’’ Proceed-ings of the 77th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Associa-tion. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

1981. ‘‘Altruism, Volunteers, and Volunteerism.’’ Journal of VoluntaryAction Research 10: 21-36.

1994. ‘‘Determinants of Voluntary Association Participation and Volun-

teering: A Literature Review.’’ Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 23(3): 243-264.

and Brut R. Baldwin 1974. ‘‘Parental Influence, Socioeconomic Status,and Voluntary Organization Participation.’’ Journal of Voluntary Action Re-search 3: 59-66.

, Jacqueline Macaulay, and Associates 1980. Participation in Social andPolitical Activities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Snyder, Mark and Kenneth G. Debono 1987. ‘‘A Functional Approach to Atti-tudes and Persuasion.’’ In Social Influence: The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 5.Eds. M.P. Zanna, J.M. Olson, and C.P. Herman. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl-baum, 107-125.

Steiner, T. 1984. ‘‘An Investigation of Motivational Factors Operative in Proso-cial Volunteers.’’ Dissertation Abstracts International 36 (6B): 3130.

Sundeen, Richard A. 1992. ‘‘Differences in Personal Goals and Attitudes AmongVolunteers.’’ Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 21: 271-291.

Titmus, R.M. 1971. The Gift Relationships: From Human Blood to Social Policy.New York: Vintage.

Unger, S. Lynette 1991. ‘‘Altruism as a Motivation to Volunteer.’’ Journal ofEconomic Psychology 12: 71-100.

Van Til, Jon 1985. ‘‘Mixed Motives: Residues of Altruism in an Age of Narcis-sism.’’ In Motivating Volunteers. Ed. Larry Moore. Vancouver VolunteerCentre, 243-261.

Widmer, Candace 1985. ‘‘Why Board Members Participate.’’ Journal of Volun-tary Action Research 14 (4): 9-23.

Wiehe, Vernon R. and Lenora Isenhour 1977. ‘‘Motivation of Volunteers.’’ Jour-nal of Social Welfare 4 (2-3): 73-79.

Williams, J. Allen, Jr. and Suzanne T. Ortega 1986. ‘‘The Multidimensionality ofJoining.’’ Journal of Voluntary Action Research 15: 35-44.

Williams, Robert F. 1987. ‘‘Receptivity to Persons with Mental Retardation: AStudy of Volunteer Interest.’’ American Journal of Mental Retardation 92 (3):299-303.

Wineburg, Robert J. 1994. ‘‘A Longitudinal Case Study of Religious Congrega-tions in Local Human Services.’’ Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 23(2): 159-169.

Wood, James R. and James G. Hougland, Jr. 1990. ‘‘The Role of Religion inPhilanthropy’’ In Critical Issues in American Philanthropy. Eds. Jon Van Tiland Associates. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 29-33.

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Univ

ersi

ty o

f L

ethbri

dge]

at

14:5

8 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2011


Yavas, Ugur and Glen Riecken 1985. ‘‘Can Volunteers be Targeted?’’ Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science 13 (2): 218-228.

, 1993. ‘‘Socioeconomic and Behavioral Correlates of DonorSegments: An Application to United Way.’’ Journal of Nonprofit & PublicSector Marketing 1 (1): 71-83.

, and Emin Babakus 1993. ‘‘Efficacy of Perceived Risk as aCorrelate of Reported Donation Behavior: An Empirical Analysis.’’ Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science 21 (1): 65-70.

, and Ravi Parameswaran 1981. ‘‘Personality, Organization-Specific Attitude, and Socioeconomic Correlates of Charity Giving Behavior.’’Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 9 (1): 52-65.

Dow

nlo

aded

by [

Univ

ersi

ty o

f L

ethbri

dge]

at

14:5

8 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2011

determinants of volunteerism: a cross-disciplinary reviewand research agenda

Documents