Advertisement

Applying Social Role Theory to Gender and Volunteering in Professional Associations

  • Rachel Fyall
  • Beth Gazley
Original Paper

Abstract

In the context of professional societies and trade associations, social role theory hypothesizes that women’s and men’s volunteer roles will also reflect gendered choices that persist even after controlling for parenting, professional experience, education, race, country of residence, and other potentially mitigating factors. Our sample includes 12,722 members of 23 diverse US-based international professional societies who participated in a survey of volunteer behavior in 2007. Using probit regression analysis, we find that gender continues to influence volunteer behaviors within professional settings. Instead of a pattern of male and female preferences for certain roles, we find that women are consistently less likely than men to engage in most volunteer activities common to professional association life. However, this gender disparity is partly neutralized when women are older and fully employed. Overall, social role theory provides a significant but incomplete perspective for understanding the volunteer behavior of professional society members.

Keywords

Gender Volunteering Associations Social role theory 

Résumé

Dans le contexte des corporations et des associations professionnelles, la théorie du rôle social suppose que les rôles des hommes et des femmes dans le bénévolat reflètent aussi des choix de genre qui persisteraient même après avoir considéré certains critères de parentalité, d’expérience professionnelle, d’éducation, de race, de pays de résidence et d’autres facteurs potentiellement atténuants. Notre échantillon contient 12,722 membres de 23 corporations professionnelles internationales basées aux États-Unis, qui ont participé à une enquête portant sur le comportement des bénévoles en 2007. Par une analyse de régression probit, nous avons déterminé que le genre continue d’influencer les comportements des bénévoles dans un environnement professionnel. Pourtant, au lieu d’obtenir un modèle des préférences des hommes et des femmes pour certains rôles, nous avons découvert que les femmes sont systématiquement moins susceptibles de s’impliquer dans la plupart des activités bénévoles courantes de la vie des associations professionnelles. Cette disparité de genre s’estompe toutefois en partie pour les femmes plus âgées et en situation d’emploi à temps plein. Globalement, la théorie du rôle social fournit une vision signifiante mais incomplète pour comprendre le comportement bénévole des membres des corporations professionnelles.

Zusammenfassung

Die Theorie der sozialen Rolle stellt im Zusammenhang mit Berufs- und Wirtschaftsverbänden die These auf, dass die ehrenamtlichen Rollen von Frauen und Männern selbst nach der Kontrolle der Faktoren Kindererziehung, Berufserfahrung, Bildung, Ethnie, Wohnsitzland und sonstiger potenziell abschwächender Faktoren gleichwohl geschlechtsdifferenzierte Entscheidungen reflektieren. Unsere Stichprobe umfasst 12.722 Mitglieder von 23 verschiedenen internationalen Berufsverbänden mit Sitz in den USA, die 2007 an einer Umfrage zum Verhalten von Ehrenamtlichen teilnahmen. Mittels der Probit-Regressionsanalyse kommen wir zu dem Ergebnis, dass die Verhaltensweisen ehrenamtlicher Tätiger im professionellen Umfeld weiterhin geschlechtsabhängig sind. Statt eines Schemas männlicher und weiblicher Präferenzen für bestimmte Rollen, sehen wir, dass sich Frauen im Vergleich zu Männern mit kontinuierlich geringerer Wahrscheinlichkeit ehrenamtlich in Bereichen engagieren, die in professionellen Verbänden üblich sind. Allerdings wird dieser geschlechtsspezifische Unterschied im Fall von älteren und vollbeschäftigten Frauen zum Teil neutralisiert. Insgesamt liefert die Theorie der sozialen Rolle eine bedeutende, doch unvollständige Perspektive für das Verständnis des Verhaltens ehrenamtlich engagierter Mitglieder in professionellen Verbänden.

Resumen

En el contexto de las sociedades profesionales y las asociaciones comerciales, la teoría del rol social propone como hipótesis que los papeles de voluntario de hombres y mujeres también reflejan las elecciones de género que persisten incluso después del control de los padres, la experiencia profesional, la educación, la raza, el país de residencia y otros factores potencialmente mitigantes. Nuestra muestra incluye 12.722 miembros de 23 sociedades profesionales internacionales diversas con base en los Estados Unidos que participaron en una encuesta sobre el comportamiento del voluntario en 2007. Utilizando el análisis probit de regresión, encontramos que el género sigue influyendo en los comportamientos del voluntario dentro de marcos profesionales. En lugar de un patrón de preferencias macho y hembra para determinados roles, encontramos que es menos probable que las mujeres, en comparación a los hombres, se impliquen en la mayoría de las actividades de voluntario comunes a la vida de la asociación profesional. Sin embargo, esta disparidad del género se neutraliza parcialmente cuando las mujeres son más mayores y disfrutan de pleno empleo. En general, la teoría del rol social proporciona una perspectiva significativa pero incompleta para comprender el comportamiento como voluntario de los miembros de sociedades profesionales.

摘要

社会的な役割理論では、職能団体および産業団体の文脈において、女性と男性のボランティア役割が子育て、専門的な経験、教育、人種、居住国とその他の潜在的な問題を緩和する要因を抑制した後もジェンダーの選択にも反映されることを仮定する。サンプルには、2007 年のボランティア行動の調査に参加した 米国を拠点とする国際的な職能団体23件の12,722 名のメンバーが含まれている。プロビット回帰分析を使用すると、職能団体においては、性別がボランティア行動に影響することがわかる。特定の役割における男性と女性の好みのパターンの代わりに、女性は一貫して職能団体の生活に共通なほとんどのボランティア活動に従事する男性よりも少ない可能性を持つことがわかった。ただし、このジェンダー格差は女性が高齢で完全雇用されていると中和される。全体的にみて、社会的な役割理論は重要だが、職能団体のメンバーによるボランティア活動の理解に不完全な視点を提供するといえる。

要約

在专业团体与行业协会背景下,社会角色理论假设:即使在控制了父母养育、专业经验、教育、种族、居住国、以及其他潜在缓解因素之后,仍一直存在因性别差异而导致的不同选择,而女性与男性的志愿者角色也反映这种不同选择。我们的样本包括12722名来自23个以美国为基地的各类国际专业团体的成员。他们参与了我们于2007年举行的关于志愿者行为的调查活动。应用机率单位回归分析(probit regression analysis),我们发现,在专业人士当中,性别继续影响着志愿者行为。与以往提出的男性和女性分别偏好某些角色的结论不同,我们发现,对于在大多数专业团体生活里常见的志愿者活动,女性的参与度一直都低于男性。然而,当女性的年龄较大且为全职雇员,这些因性别而导致的差异从某些程度上变得不太明显。总体而言,对于理解专业团体成员的志愿者行为,社会角色理论提供了颇有意义的观点,但这些观点具有局限性。

ملخص

في سياق المجتمعات المهنية والإتحادات التجارية ، نظرية الدور الإجتماعي تفترض أن أدوار النساء و الرجال المتطوعين سوف يعكس أيضا˝ خيارات التحيز للجنس التي لا تزال قائمة حتى بعد السيطرة على الأبوة والأمومة ، الخبرة المهنية ، التعليم، العرق، بلد الإقامة ، والعوامل المحتملة المخففة الأخرى. العينة التي لدينا تشمل 12,722عضو من 23 مجتمعات مهنية دولية متنوعة مقرها الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية الذين شاركوا في إستطلاع رأي لسلوك المتطوعين في عام 2007. بإستخدام تحليل الإنحدار الإحتمالي ، نجد أن نوع الجنس يستمر يؤثر على السلوكيات التطوعية داخل البيئات المهنية. بدلا˝ من وجود نمط من تفضيلات الذكور والإناث للقيام لأدوار معينة ، نجد أن النساء دائما˝ أقل عرضة من الرجال للإنخراط في معظم الأنشطة التطوعية المشتركة في حياة المجتمع المهني. مع ذلك، يتم توازن هذا التفاوت بين الجنسين جزئيا˝ عندما تكون النساء أكبر سنا˝ ويعملن بشكل كامل. عموما˝، تقدم نظرية الدور الإجتماعي منظور كبير ولكن غير مكتمل لفهم سلوك المتطوعين من أفراد المجتمع المهني .

References

  1. Belansky, E. S., & Boggiano, A. K. (1994). Predicting helping behaviors: The role of gender and instrumental/expressive self-schemata. Sex Roles, 30, 647–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett, R. J. (2000). The logic of membership of sectoral business associations. Review of Social Economy, 58, 17–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bosak, J., & Sczesny, S. (2011). Gender bias in leader selection? Evidence from a hiring simulation study. Sex Roles, 65, 234–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brint, S., & Levy, C. S. (1999). Professions and civic engagement: Trends in rhetoric and practice, 1875–1995. In T. Skocpol & M. P. Fiorina (Eds.), Civic engagement in American Democracy (pp. 163–210). Washington, DC: New York: Brookings Institution Press/Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  5. Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., & Stukas, A. A. (1996). Volunteers’ motivations: Findings from a national survey. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25, 485–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dalton, J., & Dignam, M. (2007). The decision to join: How individuals determine value and why they choose to belong. Washington, DC: ASAE and the Center for Association Leadership.Google Scholar
  7. Dansky, K. H. (1996). The effect of group mentoring on career outcomes. Group & Organization Management, 21, 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dryzek, J. S. (2012). Global Civil Society: The Progress of Post-Westphalian Politics. AnnualReview of Political Science, 15, 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 283–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). Explaining sex differences in social behavior: A meta-analytic perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 306–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and preferences: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Einolf, C. J. (2011). Gender differences in the correlates of volunteering and charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 1092–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ely, R., & Padavic, I. (2007). A feminist analysis of organizational research on sex differences. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1121–1143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Erdle, S., Sansom, M., Cole, M. R., & Heapy, N. (1992). Sex differences in personality correlates of helping behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 931–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fiala, S. E., Giuliano, T. A., Remlinger, N. M., & Braithwaite, L. C. (1999). Lending a helping hand: The effects of gender stereotypes and gender on likelihood of helping. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2164–2176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fletcher, T. D., & Major, D. A. (2004). Medical students’ motivations to volunteer: An examination of the nature of gender differences. Sex Roles, 51, 109–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Forret, M. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (2004). Networking behaviors and career outcomes: Differences for men and women? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 419–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Franke, G. R., Crowne, D. F., & Spake, D. F. (1997). Gender differences in ethical perceptions of business practices: A social role theory perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 920–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Freeman, R. B. (1997). Working for nothing: The supply of volunteer labor. Journal of Labor Economics, 15, S140–S166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gazley, B., & Dignam, M. (2008). The decision to volunteer: Why people give their time and how you can engage them. Washington, DC: ASAE and the Center for Association Leadership.Google Scholar
  22. Gold, D. B. (1971). Women and voluntarism. In V. Gornick & B. K. Moran (Eds.), Woman in sexist society: Studies in power and powerlessness (pp. 533–554). New York: Basic Books Inc.Google Scholar
  23. Gomez, R., & Gunderson, M. (2003). Volunteer activity and the demands of work and family. Industrial Relations, 58, 573–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grönlund, H., Holmes, K., Kang, C., Cnaan, R. A., Handy, F., Brudney, J. L., et al. (2011). Cultural values and volunteering: A cross-cultural comparison of students’ motivation to volunteer in 13 countries. Journal of Academic Ethics, 9, 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hayghe, H. V. (1991). Volunteers in the U.S.: Who donates the time? Monthly Labor Review, 114, 17–23.Google Scholar
  26. Healy, K., Haynes, M., & Hampshire, A. (2007). Gender, social capital and location: Understanding the interactions. International Journal of Social Welfare, 14, 110–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hollander, J. A., Renfrow, D. G., & Howard, J. A. (2011). Gendered situations, gendered selves: A gender lens on social psychology (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  28. Hook, J. L. (2004). Reconsidering the division of household labor: Incorporating volunteer work and informal support. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Karniol, R., Grosz, E., & Schorr, I. (2003). Caring, gender role orientation, and volunteering. Sex Roles, 49, 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kidder, D. L. (2002). The influence of gender on the performance of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 28, 629–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kirchmeyer, C. (2008). Determinants of managerial career success: Evidence and explanation of male/female differences. Journal of Management, 24, 673–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kite, M. E. (1996). Age, gender, and occupational label: A test of social role theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 361–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leung, K., Bhagat, R. S., Buchan, N. R., Erez, M., & Gibson, C. B. (2005). Culture and international business: Recent advances and their implications for future research. Journal of International Business Studies, 36, 357–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lewis, M. A., & Naguchi, E. (2006). The female corp of volunteers: How gender and labor supply interact to affect civic participation. Race, Gender, and Class, 13, 255–267.Google Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Marshall, G. A., & Taniguchi, H. (2011). Good jobs, good deeds: The gender-specific influences of job characteristics on volunteering. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23, 213–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Merton, R. K. (1958). The Functions of the Professional Association. American Journal of Nursing, 58, 50–54.Google Scholar
  38. Mesch, D. J., Rooney, P. M., Steinberg, K. S., & Denton, B. (2006). The effects of race, gender, and marital status on giving and volunteering in Indiana. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35, 565–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Messner, M. A., & Bozada-Deas, S. (2009). Separating the men from the moms: The making of adult gender segregation in youth sports. Gender & Society, 23, 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mosher, Frederick. C. (1982). Democracy and the public service (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Musick, M. A., & Wilson, J. (2008). Volunteers: A social profile. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2003). Gendering social capital: Bowling in womens’ leagues? Paper presented at the conference on gender and social capital, St. John’s College, University of Manitoba, 2–3 May 2003.Google Scholar
  43. Rooney, P., Steinberg, K., & Schervish, P. (2004). Methodology is destiny: The effect of survey prompts on reported levels of giving and volunteering. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(4), 628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roxburgh, S. (2002). Racing through life: The distribution of time pressures by roles and role resources among full-time workers. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 23, 121–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sassen, S. (2006). Territory, authority, rights: From medieval to global assemblages. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Smith, D. H. (1994). Determinants of voluntary association participation and volunteering: A literary review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 23, 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Studer, S., & von Schnurbein, G. (2012). Organizational factors affecting volunteers: A literature review on volunteer coordination. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24, 402–440.Google Scholar
  48. 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, 83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Themudo, N. S. (2009). Gender and the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 663–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tschirhart, M. (2006). Nonprofit membership associations. In W. W. Powell & R. S. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2nd ed., pp. 523–541). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  51. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013). Volunteering in the United States 2012: Economic news release. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.nr0.htm.
  52. Van Emmerik, I. J. H., Jawahar, I. M., & Stone, T. H. (2004). The relationship between personality and discretionary helping behaviors. Psychological Reports, 95, 355–365.Google Scholar
  53. Walker, J. L. (1991). Mobilizing interest groups in America: Patrons, professions, and social movements. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  54. Walsh, A. M., & Borkowski, S. C. (2006). Professional associations in the health industry: Factors affecting female executive participation. Women in Management Review, 21, 365–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wayne, J. H., & Cordeiro, B. L. (2003). Who is a good organizational citizen? Social perception of male and female employees who use family leave. Sex Roles, 49, 233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Webb, N. J., & Abzug, R. (2008). Do occupational group members vary in volunteering activity? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(4), 689–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wicker, P., Breuer, C., & von Hanau, T. (2012). Gender effects on organizational problems—Evidence from non-profit sports clubs in Germany. Sex Roles, 66, 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wilbourn, M. P., & Kee, D. W. (2010). Henry the nurse is a doctor too: Implicitly examining children’s gender stereotypes for male and female occupational roles. Sex Roles, 62, 670–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 215–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1997). Who cares? Toward an integrated theory of volunteer work. American Sociological Review, 62, 694–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wymer, W. (2011). The implications of sex differences on volunteer preferences. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22, 831–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public and Environmental AffairsIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.School of Public and Environmental AffairsIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations