Advertisement

Influences of Resources and Subjective Dispositions on Formal and Informal Volunteering

  • Haruyo Mitani
Original Paper

Abstract

This study investigated the influences of resources and subjective dispositions on formal and informal volunteering. The author examined whether resources are associated with formal volunteering, while subjective dispositions are associated with informal volunteering, using data from representative national Japanese samples (SSP-P2010 data). The results suggested that socioeconomic resources (namely education) are more strongly related to formal volunteering than to informal volunteering, while subjective dispositions (empathy and religious mind) are associated with both formal and informal volunteering. The main finding of the present study was that empathy and religious mind are the essential facilitators of both types of volunteering with different characteristics.

Keywords

Volunteering Resources Subjective dispositions Empathy Religious mind 

Résumé

Cette étude enquête sur les façons dont les ressources et les dispositions subjectives influencent le bénévolat formel et informel. L’auteur pose la question de savoir si les ressources seraient associées avec le bénévolat formel alors que les dispositions subjectives seraient associées avec le bénévolat informel. La question est abordée en utilisant les données d’échantillons japonais représentatifs à l’échelle nationale (données SSP-P2010). Les résultats suggèrent que les ressources socio-économiques (en particulier l’éducation) sont plus fortement liées au bénévolat formel qu’informel, alors que les dispositions subjectives (l’empathie et la religiosité) sont associées au bénévolat formel comme informel. La découverte principale de la présente étude est que l’empathie et la religiosité facilitent les deux types de bénévolat suivant des modalités différentes.

Zusammenfassung

Diese Studie untersuchte den Einfluss von Ressourcen und subjektiven Neigungen auf formale und informale ehrenamtliche Tätigkeiten. Der Autor prüfte, ob Ressourcen mit formalen ehrenamtlichen Tätigkeiten und subjektive Neigungen mit informalen ehrenamtlichen Tätigkeiten in Verbindung stehen, indem er sich auf die Daten repräsentativer landesweit erhobener Stichproben aus Japan stützte (SSP-P2010-Daten). Die Ergebnisse wiesen darauf hin, dass sozioökonomische Ressourcen (nämlich Bildung) in engerer Beziehung zu formalen als zu informalen ehrenamtlichen Tätigkeiten stehen, während subjektive Neigungen (Mitgefühl und religiöse Überzeugungen) sowohl mit formalen als auch informalen ehrenamtlichen Tätigkeiten verbunden sind. Das wichtigste Ergebnis der vorliegenden Studie war, dass Mitgefühl und religiöse Überzeugungen der hauptsächliche Grund für beide Arten ehrenamtlicher Tätigkeiten mit ihren unterschiedlichen Merkmalen waren.

Resumen

El presente estudio investigó las influencias de los recursos y de las disposiciones subjetivas en el voluntariado formal e informal. El autor examinó si los recursos se asocian al voluntariado formal, mientras que las disposiciones subjetivas se asocian al voluntariado informal, utilizando datos de muestras nacionales japonesas representativas (datos SSP-P2010). Los resultados sugirieron que los recursos socioeconómicos (a saber, la educación) están más fuertemente relacionados con el voluntariado formal que con el voluntariado informal, mientras que las disposiciones subjetivas (empatía y mentalidad religiosa) se asocian al voluntariado formal e informal. El principal hallazgo del presente estudio fue que la empatía y la mentalidad religiosa son los facilitadores esenciales de ambos tipos de voluntariado con diferentes características.

摘要

本文调查了资源和主观性情对正式和非正式志愿活动的影响。作者运用日本的全国代表性样本数据(SSP-P2010数据),评估资源是否与正式志愿活动相关、主观性情是否与非正式志愿活动相关。结果显示,社会经济资源(即教育)与正式志愿活动的关联较强,与非正式志愿活动的关联较弱,而主观性情(同情心和宗教观念)与正式志愿活动和非正式志愿活动都存在关联。本次研究的主要结论是,同情心与宗教观念是两类不同志愿活动的必要推动因素。

要約

本研究は、公式・非公式のボランティア行動に対する資源と主観的性質の影響を検討するものである。日本人の代表的なサンプルデータ(SSP-P2010)を用いて,資源は公式のボランティア行動と関連しやすく、主観的性質は非公式のボランティア行動と関連しやすいかを検討した。結果から、社会経済的資源(すなわち教育)は非公式のボランティア行動よりも公式のボランティア行動とより関連しやすく、一方、主観的性質(共感性と宗教的な心)は公式・非公式両方のボランティア行動と関連することが示された。本研究の主な調査結果から、共感性と宗教的な心が、異なる特徴を有する両方のタイプのボランティア行動に不可欠な促進剤であることが明らかとなった。

ملخص

بحثت هذه الدراسة التأثيرات من الموارد والتصرفات الشخصية على العمل التطوعي الرسمي و الغير رسمي. المؤلف فحص ما إذا كانت الموارد مرتبطة مع العمل التطوعي الرسمي، في حين ترتبط التصرفات ذات الصلة بالخبرة الذاتية مع العمل التطوعي الغير رسمي، بإستخدام بيانات من ممثل عينات بيانات الوطنية اليابانية ((SSP-P2010. تشير النتائج إلى أن الموارد الاقتصادية والاجتماعية (أي التعليم) لها علاقة بقوة للعمل التطوعي الرسمي أكثر من العمل التطوعي الغير رسمي، في حين ترتبط التصرفات ذات الصلة بالخبرة الذاتية (التعاطف والعقل الديني) بكل من العمل التطوعي الرسمي و الغير رسمي. تمثلت النتيجة الرئيسية للدراسة الحالية في أن التعاطف والعقل الديني هما الميسرين أساسيا˝ لكل من النوعين من العمل التطوعي مع خصائص مختلفة.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was conducted as a part of the SSP project (http://ssp.hus.osaka-u.ac.jp/). When using the SSP-P2010 data, the author obtained the permission of the SSP project.

References

  1. Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2), 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, P. E., & Dhingra, P. H. (2001). Religious involvement and volunteering: Implications for civil society. Sociology of Religion, 62(3), 315–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bekkers, R. (2005). Participation in voluntary associations: Relations with resources, personality, and political values. Political Psychology, 26(3), 439–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bekkers, R. (2006). Traditional and health-related philanthropy: The role of resources and personality. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(4), 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bekkers, R. (2010). Who gives what and when? A scenario study of intentions to give time and money. Social Science Research, 39(3), 369–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brady, H. E., Schlozman, K. L., & Verba, S. (1999). Prospecting for participants: Rational expectations and the recruitment of political activists. The American Political Science Review, 93(1), 153–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brady, H. E., Verba, S., & Schlozman, K. L. (1995). Beyond Ses: A resource model of political participation. The American Political Science Review, 89(2), 271–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cabinet Office. (2012). NPO hojin no shinseijyurisu/ninsyosu [The number of application acceptance and authentication of incorporated nonprofit organizations]. Retrieved April 1, 2012 from https://www.npo-homepage.go.jp/data/pref.html.
  9. Cnaan, R., Handy, F., & Wadsworth, M. (1996). Defining who is a volunteer: Conceptual and empirical considerations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25(3), 364–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Madison: WCB Brown and Benchmark.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, M. H., Mitchell, K. V., Hall, J. A., Lothert, J., Snapp, T., & Meyer, M. (1999). Empathy, expectations, and situational preferences: Personality influences on the decision to participate in volunteer helping behaviors. Journal of Personality, 67(3), 469–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Day, K. M., & Devlin, R. A. (1996). Volunteerism and crowding out: Canadian econometric evidence. The Canadian Journal of Economics, 29(1), 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dekker, P., & Broek, A. vd. (1998). Civil society in comparative perspective: Involvement in voluntary associations in North America and Western Europe. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 9, 11–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Einolf, C. J. (2008). Empathic concern and prosocial behaviors: A test of experimental results using survey data. Social Science Research, 37, 1267–1279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freeman, R. B. (1997). Working for nothing: The supply of volunteer labor. Journal of Labor Economics, 15(1), S140–S166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gallagher, S. K. (1994). Doing their share: Comparing patterns of help given by older and younger adults. Journal of Marriage & Family, 56(3), 567–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hustinx, L., Cnaan, R. A., & Handy, F. (2010). Navigating theories of volunteering: A hybrid map for a complex phenomenon. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 40(4), 410–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Inaba, K. (2011). Unconscious religiosity and social capital. Religion and Social Contribution, 1, 3–26.Google Scholar
  20. Inouye, J. E. (2007). Effect of institutional trust on formal and informal volunteering. Paper presented at the 102nd Annual Meeting of American Sociological Association, New York, August 11–14, 2007.Google Scholar
  21. Ishii, K. (2007). Gendainihonjin no syukyo [Religion of modern Japanese]. Tokyo: Shinyosya.Google Scholar
  22. Jackson, E. F., Bachmeier, M. D., Wood, J. R., & Craft, E. A. (1995). Volunteering and charitable giving: Do religious and associational ties promote helping behavior? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 24(1), 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kawabata, S. (1997). Shukyo to fukushibunka [Religiosity and welfare culture]. In Y. Ichibangase, H. Kobayashi, S. Kawabata, & S. Sonoda (Eds.), Fukushibunkaron (The theory of welfare culture) (pp. 67–76). Tokyo: Yuhikaku Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  24. Lam, P. Y. (2002). As the flocks gather: How religion affects voluntary association participation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(3), 405–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Loveland, M. T., Sikkink, D., Myers, D. J., & Radcliff, B. (2005). Private prayer and civic involvement. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 44(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Markham, W. T., & Bonjean, C. M. (1996). Employment status and the attitudes and behavior of higher status women volunteers, 1975 and 1992: A case study. Sex Roles, 34, 695–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McPherson, J. M., & Rotolo, T. (1996). Testing a dynamic model of social composition: Diversity and change in voluntary groups. American Sociological Review, 61(2), 179–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Menchik, P. L., & Weisbrod, B. A. (1987). Volunteer labor supply. Journal of Public Economics, 32(2), 159–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mitani, H. (2012). Who are voluntary carers? Reexamination of the “K” pattern in volunteering. Kansai Sociological Review, 11, 29–40.Google Scholar
  30. Musick, M. A., & Wilson, J. (2007). Volunteers: A social profile. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Musick, M. A., Wilson, J., & Bynum, W. B. (2000). Race and formal volunteering: The differential effects of class and religion. Social Forces, 78(4), 1539–1570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nihei, N. (2008). Civic participation and social stratification in Japan: Focusing on the participatory inequality and political attitudes. In G. Doba (Ed.), Publicness and Economic on Equality in Contemporary Japan (pp. 189–210). Sendai: The study group of the national survey of social stratification and social mobility in 2005.Google Scholar
  33. O’Connell, A. A. (2006). Logistic regression models for ordinal response variables. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  34. Omoto, A., & Snyder, M. (1993). Volunteers and their motivations and theoretical issues and practical concerns. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 4, 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Penner, L. A., & Finkelstein, M. A. (1998). Dispositional and structural determinants of volunteerism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 525–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reitsma, J., Scheepers, P., & Grotenhuis, M. T. (2006). Dimensions of individual religiosity and charity: Cross-National effect differences in European countries? Review of Religious Research, 47(4), 347–362.Google Scholar
  38. Rosenthal, S., Feiring, C., & Lewis, M. (1998). Political volunteering from late adolescence to young adulthood: Patterns and predictors. Journal of Social Issues, 54(3), 477–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ruiter, S., & De Graaf, N. D. (2006). National context, religiosity, and volunteering: Results from 53 countries. American Sociological Review, 71(2), 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sakurai, S. (1994). Factors of multidimensional empathy scale and their relations to personality traits. Bulletin of Institute for Educational Research of Nara University of Education, 30, 125–132.Google Scholar
  41. Salamon, L. M., Sokolowski, S. W., & Associates. (2004). Global civil society: Dimensions of the nonprofit sector, Vol. 2. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.Google Scholar
  42. Smith, T. W. (2003). Altruism in contemporary America: A report from the National Altruism Study. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  43. Smith, T. W. (2006). Altruism and empathy in America: Trends and correlates. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  44. Stark, R., & Glock, C. Y. (1968). American piety: The nature of religious commitment (patterns of religious commitment). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  45. Stürmer, S., Siem, B., Snyder, M., & Kropp, A. (2006). Empathy-motivated helping: The moderating role of group membership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(7), 943–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Taniguchi, H. (2006). Men’s and women’s volunteering: Gender differences in the effects of employment and family characteristics. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Taniguchi, H. (2010). Who are volunteers in Japan? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(1), 161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Taniguchi, H., & Thomas, L. (2011). The influences of religious attitudes on volunteering. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(2), 335–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Toyoshima, S. (1998). Social stratification and social activities. In K. Katase (Ed.), Political Consciousness in Contemporary Japan (pp. 151–178). Tokyo: The study group of the national survey of social stratification and social mobility in 1995.Google Scholar
  50. Van Tienen, M., Scheepers, P., Reitsma, J., & Schilderman, H. (2011). The role of religiosity for formal and informal volunteering in the Netherlands. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(3), 365–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wilhelm, M. O., & Bekkers, R. (2010). Helping behavior, dispositional empathic concern, and the principle of care. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(1), 11–32.Google Scholar
  52. Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 215–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wilson, J., & Janoski, T. (1995). The contribution of religion to volunteer work. Sociology of Religion, 56(2), 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1997a). Who cares? Toward an integrated theory of volunteer work. American Sociological Review, 62(5), 694–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1997b). Work and volunteering: The long arm of the job. Social Forces, 76(1), 251–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1999). Attachment to volunteering. Sociological Forum, 14, 243–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wuthnow, R. (1991). Acts of compassion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Yoshida, H. (1986). Bukkyo to borantarizumu [Buddhism and voluntarism]. In Y. Ogasawara, & N. Hayase (Eds.), Borantiakatsudo no riron 2 [The theory of volunteer activities No. 2] (pp. 59–77). Osaka: Osaka Voluntary Action Center.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Human SciencesOsaka UniversitySuitaJapan

Personalised recommendations