Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector

Quarterly
http://nvs.sagepub.com

Determinants of Voluntary Association Participation and Volunteering:

A Literature Review
David Horton Smith
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 1994; 23; 243
DOI: 10.1177/089976409402300305

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://nvs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/3/243

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action

Additional services and information for Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://nvs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://nvs.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations http://nvs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/23/3/243

Downloaded from http://nvs.sagepub.com by RENE BEKKERS on March 27, 2010

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. I t finds that i~ioststiidies arc too tiarro~vin the \zitids ofvaii-
ables that they include and that q h n a t o i y power is rediiced (1s a result.
Such participatioii is sigriifcaritlygreaterfor certaiii kinds of variables:
cotitaxtiin1 (for exanipfe, siiiallcr coniniunity), social backgtaitnd (for
exaniple, liiglier education), persoiiality (for a m p l e , 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 pre-
dictor 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 coilfit7iisa gettern1
activity mdel that posits a cliisteririg of different types ofsociocitlturally
approved discretioiiary activity.

The determinants of participation in voluntary associations have been of inter-

est 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-
t i w criticisms that have helped to make this a stronger article. Remaining errors are my o\\.n.

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

Downloaded from http://nvs.sagepub.com by RENE BEKKERS on March 27, 2010

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 ambi-
tious 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 back-
ground 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 h t h o u t 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 determi-
nants 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 lead-
ers 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 atti-
tude theory, cognitive theory, and symbolic interaction theory underlie the
determinants used in this review. Constraints of space prevent me from elab-
orating 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 extra-
version 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 http://nvs.sagepub.com by RENE BEKKERS on March 27, 2010

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 indi-
vidual. 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 influ-
ences, come into play. Ideally, context should be measured independently of
the individual (that is, not as an individuals 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 par-
ticipation in higher-economic-status San Francisco neighborhoods when indi-
vidual socioeconomic status (education, occupation, income) was controlled.
Their study suggests that at least one contextual variable helps to shape indi-
vidual 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 participa-
tion 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 par-
ticipation. Large, urban places seem to be less receptive to volunteer partici-
pation, all other things being equal. State (Berger, 1991) and regional
(Vaillancourt and Payette, 1986; Stump, 1986) effects on volunteer participa-
tion 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 organi-
zation in which the subject works as a full-time job. One good example is
Hougland and Shepards(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 man-
agers 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 partici-
pate as volunteers, Foss (1983) found blood donation higher in a university

Downloaded from http://nvs.sagepub.com by RENE BEKKERS on March 27, 2010

that had generally positive attitudes toward volunteer participation than in a
university where attitudes were less positive. But other characteristics of orga-
nizations have also been found to encourage volunteer participation. Betz and
Judkins (1975) found more selective attraction and socialization in a volun-
tary 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 partic-
ipation.
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 organiza-
tions (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 par-
ticipation.
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 orga-
nizations in which participation takes place. Optimally, researchers should con-
trol 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] legitimatechildren, parents of children who are mainly in the age

Downloaded from http://nvs.sagepub.com by RENE BEKKERS on March 27, 2010

 Associntion Particiyntion nitd Volwiteering
Volii~ita~y 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 res-
idents, and married. All these qualities were viewed as evidence of rootedness.
There is also more participation for higher occupational status and higher edu-
cation. A multicounty sample survey of adults aged forty-five and older
(Edwards and White, 1980) found voluntary association participation (activ-
ity in organizations) to be associated significantly with the respondents edu-
cation, the head of households education, occupational prestige, and income
and with low family size. Several other relevant variables did not show signif-
icance.
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 vari-
ables, 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 impor-
tant 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 http://nvs.sagepub.com by RENE BEKKERS on March 27, 2010

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 rela-
tionship 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 asso-
ciation 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 http://nvs.sagepub.com by RENE BEKKERS on March 27, 2010

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 homo-
geneity and attenuation reduce the impact of socioeconomic status on par-
ticipation 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, espe-
cially 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 socioe-
conomic status and other variables, Sundeen (1992) finds that whites vol-
unteer 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 multi-
variate 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 http://nvs.sagepub.com by RENE BEKKERS on March 27, 2010

250 Smith

(Berger, 1991; Schiff, 1990). This finding probably results in part from the ten-
dency for parents of school-age children to be drawn into activities and orga-
nizations 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 sta-
tus 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 dom-
inant 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 impor-
tant 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 char-
acteristics 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 stabil-
ity, and self-esteem or ego strength-all indicators of a social orientation. The
literature is thin but promising. I t would be a great help to have similar liter-
ature reviews for other types of volunteers and for voluntary association par-
ticipation 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 partici-
pation literature of the period under review Nor are there any data on
expectancies, intentions, or retained information. Probably such variables are

Downloaded from http://nvs.sagepub.com by RENE BEKKERS on March 27, 2010

Voltiiitary Associatioil Participation atid Voliiiiteering 251

considered too psychologicalto interest most sociologists, although the pres-

ent 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 volun-
teer 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 poten-
tial factors affecting volunteer participation. Volunteer participation is clearly
affected by the volunteersattitudes toward the group of interest. For the period
under review, Chacko (1985) identified the importance of perceived effective-
ness of the volunteer group. Cook (1984) found affirming ones 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 imme-
diate 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 partic-
ipation, since people gain some pleasure for themselves even when acting
altruistically
Drawing on Clark and Wilson (1961), some researchers have found pur-
posive incentives (attraction to the groups purpose) to be important for vol-
unteer participation (Cook, 1984;Jenner, 1982). In contrast, Widmer (1985)
argues that social and developmental (self-development) incentives are pri-
mary. 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 http://nvs.sagepub.com by RENE BEKKERS on March 27, 2010

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 vol-
unteer 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 par-
ticipation. 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 impor-
tant for some national studies to use the full range of attitudes that past
research has found to be important in conjunction with other attitudes sug-
gested 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 situ-
ation. In sociological terms, situational variables have to do with the sym-
bolic interaction between one individual and others. In psychological terms,
situational variables have to d o with an individuals 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 predic-
tor 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 sit-
uational variables are rare, but they do show such variables to be important pre-
dictors of volunteer participation. A national sample multivariate study

Downloaded from http://nvs.sagepub.com by RENE BEKKERS on March 27, 2010

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 stud-
ies 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 com-
plex dependent variable that we can call the general activity pattern. This pat-
tern 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 asso-
ciated significantly with different types of social participation, such as neigh-
borhood 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 stud-
ies 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 mod-
els. 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 http://nvs.sagepub.com by RENE BEKKERS on March 27, 2010

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 com-
munity, and more children under eighteen in the household (Smith, 1983).
The dominant status model receives substantial confirmation in most rel-
evant 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 house-
hold under eighteen, length of time resident in the community, age, and mar-
ital status and, in bivariate analyses, for race (where the dominantwhites
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 volunteer-
ing 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 participa-
tion, 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 vol-
unteer 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 vari-
ables 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 partic-
ipation. 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 Bergers (1991), which depended on definitions of personality
variables, actually included all such kinds of variables, but the studies

Downloaded from http://nvs.sagepub.com by RENE BEKKERS on March 27, 2010

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 vol-
unteer 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 par-
ticipation to be associated positively with such socioculturally approved dis-
cretionary 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 sam-
ple 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 volun-
teer 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 per-
sonality, 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 http://nvs.sagepub.com by RENE BEKKERS on March 27, 2010

256 S 111it 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 par-
ticipation results from larger context (territory and organization), social back-
ground and role variables, personality traits, attitudes, and situational variables.
Although background and attitude variables have been reasonably well stud-
ied, more kinds of background variables need to be studied. The social back-
ground 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 con-
text, 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 con-
text 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 exam-
ple, region, community size), attitude, and situational variables. Use of a larger
set of determinant realms tends to increase the variance explained in a volun-
teer 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).1Unfortunately, many
researchers fail even to compute a proportional-reduction-of-error-variancesta-
tistic (for example, R2). A multirealm national survey should be sure to mea-
sure 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 http://nvs.sagepub.com by RENE BEKKERS on March 27, 2010
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 impor-
tant than motive talk.
The General Activity Model (Smith, 1983) postulates positive intercorre-
lations among socioculturally valued discretionary time activities like volun-
teer 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 vari-
able. 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 find-
ing 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, particu-
larly 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 Perkinss (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 http://nvs.sagepub.com by RENE BEKKERS on March 27, 2010

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 par-
ticipation 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 impor-
tant 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); polit-
ical 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 obli-
gation 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), avail-
ability during a disaster (Stallings, 1989). availability of a new time block (Heshka, 1983), social
support (Clary. 1987). an associates 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 charitablegiving (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 volun-
teer group can be seen as. 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 per-
cent; 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 http://nvs.sagepub.com by RENE BEKKERS on March 27, 2010

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 asso-
ciations. 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 affil-
iation. 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 soci-
ety 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, perfor-
mance, 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 http://nvs.sagepub.com by RENE BEKKERS on March 27, 2010
260 Sf Jlith

Ed~vards,P. K., Edwards, J. N.. and Watts, A. D. (1984). Women, work, and social participa-
tion.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.jour-
nal 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 volunteer-
ing 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 volun-
teers 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 OccupationalPsychology, 57, 107-120.
Knoke. D., and Thomson. R. (1977). Voluntary association membership trends and the family
life cycle. Social Forces, 56( 1). 4 W 5 .
Kolchin, hl. G . , and Hyclak, T. (1984). Participation in union actitlties: A multivariate analysis.
Journal o f h b o r Research, 3 3 ) . 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 http://nvs.sagepub.com by RENE BEKKERS on March 27, 2010

Voluiitary Associatiail Participation aid Voluatoerisg 261

Lemon, ht., Palisi, B. J., and Jacobson, P. E. (1972). Dominant statuses and involvement in for-
mal 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 mem-
bership 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 move-
ment. 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 orga-
nization changes the rewards of participation. In Da\-id Horton Smith, Jon Van Til. and oth-
ers (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 par-
ticipation 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 asso-
ciations: 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 http://nvs.sagepub.com by RENE BEKKERS on March 27, 2010

262 Smilh
Rubin, A,, and Thorelli, 1. hl. (1984). Egoistic motives and longevity of participation of social sci-
ence 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: A n 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 orga-
nizations: Application to some Chilean data. American Journal of Sociology, 72, 249-266.
Smith, D. H. (1969). E\<dence for a general activity syndrome. In American Psychological Asso-
ciation (Ed.), Proceedings ofthe 77th annual convention ofthe American PsychologicalAssociation.
IVashington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Smith. D. H. (1973). The impact ofthe voluntary sector on society. In Daitd H. Smith (Ed.), Vol-
untary action t-esearch: 1973. Lexington, hlA: Lexington Books.
Smith, D. H. (1975). Voluntary action and voluntary groups. In Alex Inkeles, James Coleman,
and Neil Smelser (Eds.), Annual review ofsociology: 1975. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Smith, D. H. (1981). Altruism, volunteers, and volunteerism.Journa1of VohintaryAclion Research,
10.21-36.
Smith, D. H. (1983). Synanthrometrics: On progress in the development of a general theory of
voluntary action and citizen participation. In David Horton Smith, Jon Van Til, and others
(eds.), Internahml perspectives on voluntary action research. Washington. DC: University Press
of America.
Smith, D. H. (1993). Public benefit and member benefit nonprofit voluntary groups. A'onproJif
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 22(1), 53-68.
Smith, D. H., and Baldwin, 8. R. (1974). Parental influence, socioeconomic status, and volun-
tary organization participation.Journa1 o/ Voluntary Action Research, 3, 59-66.
Smith, D. H.. hlacaulay, J., and Associates. (1980). Participation in social and political activities. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Smith, D. H., and Reddy, R. D. (1973). The impact of voluntary action on the volunteer/partic-
ipant. In Da\id Horton Smith (Ed.), Voluntary action research: 1973. Lexington, hlA: Lexing-
ton Books.
Smith, D. H., and Theberge, N. (1987). Why people recrcate: An overview of research. Champaign.
IL: Life Enhancement Publications.
Snyder, E. E. (1970). Longitudinal analysis of social participation in high school and early adult-
hood voluntary associational participation. Adolescence, 5( 17). 79-88.
Stallings, R. A. (1989). Volunteerism inside complex organizations: Off-duty hospital personnel
in a disaster. A'onproJit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 18(2), 133-145.
Stump, R. W. (1986). Regional variations in the determinants of religious participation. Review
of Religious Research, 27(3), 208-225.
Sundeen, R. A. (1992). Differences in personal goals and attitudes among volunteers. Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quartetly, 21, 271-291.
Sundeen. R. A., and Siegei, G. B. (1987). The community and departmental contexts of volun-
teer use by police. Jottnial of Voluntary Action Research, 16(3), 43-53,
Tomeh, A. K. (1973). Formal voluntary organizations: participation, correlates, and interrela-
tionships. Sociological Inquiry, 43(3-4), 89-122.
Trela, J. E. (1976). Social class and association membership: An analysis of age-graded and non-
age-graded voluntary participation. Journal oJGerontology. 31 (2). 1 9 s 2 0 3 .
Unger, D. G., and Wandersman, A. (1983). Neighboring and its role in black organizations: An
exploratory report. American]ournal of Community Psjchology, 11(3), 291-300.
Uuell, D. L. (1980). Conflicting explanations or participatory group membership. Journal o/ Vol-
untary Action Research, g(1-4). 201-210.

Downloaded from http://nvs.sagepub.com by RENE BEKKERS on March 27, 2010

Voltuitaiy Associatioit Pnrticiyation a d Volunteering 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), 3 5 4 4 .
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 http://nvs.sagepub.com by RENE BEKKERS on March 27, 2010