Int Rev Public Nonprofit Mark (2012) 9:19–26 DOI 10.1007/s12208-011-0072-y O R I G I N A L A RT I C L E
Gender differences in social support in the decision to volunteer Walter Wymer
Received: 15 February 2011 / Accepted: 31 May 2011 / Published online: 10 June 2011 # Springer-Verlag 2011
Abstract This paper reports the results of a study that examines gender differences relating to social influences and norms when individuals are making the decision to volunteer. Specifically, this paper examines gender differences in reciprocity and collaboration in initiating volunteer service. An online questionnaire was used to collect data (N=742). The results were significant and supported the hypotheses. Females are more likely than males to expect reciprocation in volunteer recruitment by individuals within their social networks. Females are more likely than males to seek social support when initiating volunteer service. Managerial implications and suggested areas of future research are discussed. Keywords Gender differences . Volunteer recruitment . Social relations . Social influence
1 Purpose of research The target marketing (recruiting and retaining) of volunteers is part of the resource attraction function of nonprofit marketing (Gainer and Padanyi 2002; Octon 1993; Yavas and Riecken 1985). Several areas of prior research on volunteers have received attention, ranging from the attitudes of volunteers (Clary et al. 1996) to the benefits of volunteering for the elderly (Haski-Leventhal 2009). One topic of special interest that has received some attention in the nonprofit marketing field is gender differences in volunteering in general and the volunteering decision process in particular (Febbraro 1997; Wymer and Samu 2002). Gender refers to biological sex (males and females) and is not used in this article to refer to socially constructed roles (Udry 1994). Prior research has reported gender differences with respect to rates of volunteering (Haski-Leventhal 2009), the average
W. Wymer (*) Faculty of Management, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, AB T1K 3M4, Canada e-mail:
[email protected]
20
W. Wymer
number of hours volunteered on a regular basis (Wymer et al. 1997), the number of organizations for which one chooses to volunteer (Wymer and Samu 2002), and motivations for volunteering (Ibrahim and Brannen 1997). No research was identified which examined gender differences related to the pre-volunteer decision process. Volunteering is often a social activity; that is, one often volunteers with others. Prior research has found that the primary reason people give for volunteering is that they were asked to do so (Independent Sector 2001, pp. 19–20). It appears that the decision to volunteer is often socially influenced. The decision to volunteer may be especially influenced when the recruiter has social bonds with the individual being recruited (Wilson 2000; Wymer 1997; Wymer et al. 1997). We know little, however, regarding possible gender differences in the social influence antecedents of volunteering. This paper adds to this stream of research by examining the gender differences related to social relations when individuals are making the decision to volunteer. Specifically, this paper examines gender differences in reciprocity and collaboration in initiating volunteer service. Is there a gender difference in the expectation that a recruitment appeal between individuals with a social bond creates a social obligation? Is there a gender difference in a preference for affiliative volunteering (that is, jointly volunteering with a friend)? Nonprofit marketers can more effectively target and recruit volunteers with a more informed understanding of the social dynamics involved. Are there differences between males and females regarding their tendencies to be socially influenced, to socially influence others, and to initiate volunteer service with members of their social networks?
2 Conceptual background Since the literature has examples of different types of social support (Tardy 1985), it is useful to be more precise with how this concept is used in this paper. Social support is both given and received between members of a social network (Tardy 1985). The type of social support given or received may vary, depending on the situation (House 1981; Streeter and Franklin 1992). The types of social support identified in the literature are: emotional, instrumental, informational, and appraisal. Two of these types of social support have relevance in the context of initiating volunteering: emotional support and instrumental support. Emotional support refers to the reciprocity of trust and empathy. Instrumental support refers to the reciprocity of helping behaviors (Tardy 1985). Social support exists within the context of social networks, which typically refer to family, friends, or community (Flaherty et al. 1983). Maintenance of social networks requires reciprocity, the willingness to give as well as receive social support (Ingersoll-Dayton and Antonucci 1988). Reciprocity is a norm of socially supportive relationships within social networks (Antonucci et al. 1990). Prior research has reported gender differences with respect to social networks. For example, within a social network, women are more likely than men to expect adherence to the norm of reciprocation since adhering to norms is important in the
Gender differences in social support in the decision to volunteer
21
maintenance of social relationships. Women also tend to have larger social networks than men (Krause and Keith 1989). Over their life spans, women also tend to have wider and more developed social networks than men (Krause and Keith 1989). Prior research has reported that women tend to receive social support from multiple sources, whereas men tend to rely on their spouses exclusively (Antonucci and Akiyama 1987). This is, in part, due to the socialization process. During childhood, boys are taught to repress emotions and to act autonomously, reducing the likelihood of asking for and receiving support. Girls, however, are taught to express emotion, which encourages the development of mutually supportive social relationships (Krause and Keith 1989). With respect to gender differences in social relationships, females tend to be more communal, manifesting greater empathy. Females tend to show more concern for the well-being of other females. In their friendships, females tend to be more nurturing, desire greater intimacy, and demonstrate greater social-emotional support. Women tend to have more extensive and emotionally intimate relationships than do men. Males are more consistently instrumental, manifesting more concern for the establishment of dominance, control of group activities, task orientation, and greater risk taking (Baron-Cohen 2004, pp. 29–60; Eagly 1987, pp. 108–112; Eagly 2009; Geary 2010, pp. 322–338; Krause and Keith 1989). Females tend to be more concerned with a reciprocal and socially stable system of interpersonal relationships (Geary 2010, pp. 276, 327–338). Males tend to be more competitive than females (Rhoads 2004, pp. 5–6, 28–29, 33–38, 137, 152–157). Females tend to be more cooperative than males (Browne 2002, pp. 16–19, 39–40, 46–47; Maccoby 1999, pp. 40–46). In terms of valuing social relationships, females tend to value altruistic, reciprocal, and supportive relationships. Males tend to value power, politics, competition, and affirmation of their social status (Baron-Cohen 2004, pp. 32–33, 36–60). Men seek to dominate other men through advancing in hierarchical groups (Geary 2010, pp 321–334). “Women seek influence with others, but they are more likely to value the development of reciprocal relationships” (Rhoads 2004, p. 154). Females value group-oriented and group-facilitating acts more than males (Golombok and Fivush 1994, pp. 126–131). Prior research indicates that women appear to have developed a greater sensitivity to the needs of themselves and others, leading to a greater capacity to provide support and a greater dependence upon social support for psychological well-being (Flaherty and Richman 1989). Given these findings from prior research across fields in other contexts, it is reasonable to predict the following hypotheses: H1: Females are more likely than males to expect reciprocation in volunteer recruitment by individuals within their social networks. H2: Females are more likely than males to seek social support when initiating volunteer service.
3 Research method and results A questionnaire was developed to tests the preceding hypotheses. Statements were developed through multiple iterations using feedback from colleagues to ensure
22
W. Wymer
survey statements reflected a high degree of face validity. Analysis of variance tests were used to determine statistical significances of mean differences between males and females. Testing the hypotheses required measuring individuals’ preferences for various aspects of volunteering for which no existing scales were available. A literature search indicated that for many constructs, single-item scales were as valid and predictive as multi-item scales. This was found to be the case when latent variables existed at a low level of abstraction and individual ability to accurately self report was high (Abdel-Khalek 2006; Allen and Meyer 1990; Bergkvist and Rossiter 2007; Gardner et al. 1998; Gorsuch and McFarland 1972; Gorsuch and McPherson 1989; Hürny et al. 1996; Jordan and Turner 2008; Nagy 2002; Robins et al. 2001; Russell et al. 1989; Wanous et al. 1997). It was reasonable to believe that survey participants could accurately answer a simple question relating to their social expectations in the context of making a decision to volunteer. Study participants were recruited from an online consumer survey panel. This approach was deemed appropriate because research has shown that online panel data produces more reliable results than telephone surveys (Braunsberger et al. 2007) and has been used in prior research (Basil et al. 2006; Wymer and Samu 2008). The panel used in this investigation is owned by Zoomerang Online Surveys and Polls. The total panel contains over 2 million participants who agree to participate in periodic surveys for various incentives. Researchers specify which demographic variables they want to use to distinguish their sample. (A more comprehensive profile of the panel is available online at http://zoomerang.com/ resources/Panel_Profile_Book.pdf.) For this investigation, a sample that was demographically representative of the U.S. population was requested. The panel owner’s fees are based on the desired number of completed surveys, which was approximately 700 for this study. There were 433 female (58%) and 309 male (42%) participants (N=742). Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 81 years (mean age=35.8 years). Sixty-one percent of participants reported that they were married or otherwise in a long-term, committed relationship. Thirty-three percent of participants volunteer on a regular basis. Fifty-two percent of these volunteers were female. There were no significant gender differences in the number of years volunteered (mean=5.3 years), number of organizations for which they reported volunteering (mean=2), and average weekly hours volunteering (mean=4.4 h). Table 1 below provides a comparison between the sample in this study and the U.S. population. The 5-point Likert scales used to test each hypothesis are presented in Table 2 as well as descriptive statistics and significance levels. The results show that the means for each statement were significantly different and in the predicted direction. Therefore, the hypotheses are supported by the findings. As a post hoc analysis, two separate stepwise multiple regression analyses were performed. In the first regression analysis “expecting reciprocation” was the dependent or criterion variable. In the second analysis “seeking social support” was the dependent or criterion variable. In each regression, the dependent or criterion variables were regressed on gender (our predictor variable of interest) and age, volunteer, volunteer tenure, number of organizations, and average weekly hours
Gender differences in social support in the decision to volunteer
23
Table 1 Sample comparison with U.S. population Sample
U.S. population
Sex ratio
58% female/42 male
50/50a
Age
35.8 yrs
36.8 yrsb
Married or long-term relationship
61%
55% marriedc 8.1% cohabitated
Proportion volunteering
33%
26.2%e
Gender ratio of volunteers
52% female
57% femalef
Hours spent volunteering
4.4 h/week
1 h/weekg
a
Human sex ratio. Wikipedia, available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratio
b
Demographics of the United States at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
c
Alternatives to Marriage Project, available at http://www.unmarried.org/statistics.html
d
Cohabitation in the U.S. at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohabitation_in_the_United_States
e
World Volunteer Web at http://www.worldvolunteerweb.org/resources/research-reports/national/doc/ us-volunteers-contribute-81.html
f
Bureau of Labor Statistics at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.nr0.htm
g
Bureau of Labor Statistics at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.nr0.htm
volunteered (our control variables). The results are presented in Table 3. In the first regression analysis (R2 =.012, SE=.938), gender was a significant predictor of expecting a friend to reciprocate volunteering (the control variables were not significant). In the second regression analysis (R2 =.035, SE=.851), gender was a significant predictor of seeking social support during the decision to volunteer. Two control variables were also significant: age and the number of organizations for which one volunteers. Being female, being younger and volunteering for more organizations increased the likelihood that a respondent would contact some friends to co-participate in volunteering.
Table 2 Results Statement
Sex
N
Mean SD
SE
F
95% CI
Sig.
Lower Upper H1: If a friend were to ask you to Male 309 3.51 volunteer for his/her organization, Female 433 3.71 would you expect that friend to do the same for you?a
.986 .056
3.40
3.62
.915 .044
3.62
3.80
Male 309 3.44 H2: If you were to do some volunteer work for a charity or other nonprofit Female 433 3.72 organization, you would contact some of your friends to volunteer with you.b
.894 .051
3.34
3.54
.837 .040
3.64
3.80
a
5-point scale. 1=definitely no, 5=definitely yes
b
5-point scale. 1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree
7.89 .005
18.99 .000
24
W. Wymer
Table 3 Post hoc regression analyses Dep vara
Ind var
B
Std. error
Beta
t
1
Gender
.208
.082
.109
2.534
.012
2
Gender
.194
.075
.111
2.578
.010
Age
−.006
.002
−.117
−2.692
.007
Numberb
.062
.024
.110
2.539
.011
Sig.
a
1=If a friend were to ask you to volunteer for his/her organization, would you expect that friend to do the same for you? 2=If you were to do some volunteer work for a charity or other nonprofit organization, you would contact some of your friends to volunteer with you
b
Number of organization for which one volunteers
4 Implications If the reliability and generalizability of these findings are supported in future research, there are substantial managerial implications. Nonprofit marketers may consider encouraging their current volunteers to recruit their friends and other members of their social groups. Marketers should seek to find more effective ways of facilitating their current volunteers’ recruitment efforts. The effectiveness of using current volunteers to recruit volunteers from their social networks may be more pronounced for females. Since females tend to have larger social networks than men, there are more prospective volunteers to target (Ibrahim and Brannen 1997). When organizations are identifying prospects for volunteer recruitment, their appeals may benefit by encouraging prospects to join with friends who may also have an interest in supporting the organization’s work. This may have a multiplier effect as well as respond to the natural inclination of some to prefer to engage in activities with members of their social networks. More research is needed to better understand how nonprofit managers can influence current volunteers to recruit within their social networks. If females tend to volunteer with higher levels of social support and if they are motivated to assimilate successfully into the social network of volunteers, perhaps they may also be more likely to be retained as volunteers and demonstrate less attrition. Increases in retention would have the beneficial effect of reducing the subsequent need for recruitment. Early socialization in the nonprofit organization is important for volunteer satisfaction and retention (Haski-Leventhal and Bargal 2008). Since females tend to have a greater preference for volunteering with friends, they are bringing social support with them which may lead to more successful early socialization in the organization. More research is needed to better understand these issues. Learning more about gender differences of volunteering preferences may also inform managers’ volunteer retention planning. Retaining volunteers has been recognized as an important nonprofit marketing function (Sargeant 2005, pp. 365–369; Starnes and Wymer 2001). If there are sex differences in preferences for various aspects of the volunteer experience, managers can more appropriately place volunteers into more successful settings. Future research is needed to better understand possible gender differences with respect to leadership style. Is there a differential gender preference for a more
Gender differences in social support in the decision to volunteer
25
people-oriented, community builder? Is there a gender difference among volunteers for a leader who makes decisions after obtaining a consensus? Future research is needed to better understand possible gender differences for the volunteer work setting. Is there a gender difference with respect to the desired level of discourse and interaction among volunteers? Is there a gender difference in how performance is evaluated and achievements recognized? Is there a gender difference with respect to the degree to which co-volunteers’ personal lives are acknowledged, such as celebrating birthdays, expressing sympathies, and so forth? Future research is also needed to better understand other variables besides gender pertaining to social influences in volunteering behavior. As the post hoc analyses found, other variables may also have an influence. With more knowledge in this area, nonprofit marketers can more effectively plan recruitment strategies. More knowledge in this area would help nonprofit marketers create a more positive volunteer work experience, leading to greater retention.
References Abdel-Khalek A (2006) Measuring happiness with a single-item scale. Soc Behav Pers Int J 34(2): 139–150 Allen N, Meyer J (1990) The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. J Occup Psychol 63(1):1–18 Antonucci T, Akiyama H (1987) An examination of sex differences in social support among older men and women. Sex Roles 17(11):737–749 Antonucci T, Fuhrer R, Jackson J (1990) Social support and reciprocity: a cross-ethnic and cross-national perspective. J Soc Pers Relat 7(4):519–530 Baron-Cohen S (2004) The essential difference: male and female brains and the truth about autism. Basic Books, New York Basil D, Ridgway N, Basil M (2006) Guilt appeals: the mediating effect of responsibility. Psychol Mark 23 (12):1035–1054 Bergkvist L, Rossiter J (2007) The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. J Mark Res 44(2):175–184 Braunsberger K, Wybenga H, Gates R (2007) A comparison of reliability between telephone and web-based surveys. J Bus Res 60(7):758–764 Browne K (2002) Biology at work: rethinking sexual equality. Rutgers Univ Pr. Clary E, Snyder M, Stukas A (1996) Volunteers’ motivations: findings from a national survey. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Quart 25(4):485 Eagly A (1987) Sex differences in social behavior: a social-role interpretation. Lawrence Erlbaum Eagly A (2009) The his and hers of prosocial behavior: an examination of the social psychology of gender. Am Psychol 64(8):644–658 Febbraro A (1997) Gender differences in giving and volunteering. From http://www.givingandvolunteering.ca/ factsheets/1997_CA_gender_differences.asp Flaherty J, Richman J (1989) Gender differences in the perception and utilization of social support: theoretical perspectives and an empirical test. Soc Sci Med 28(12):1221–1228 Flaherty JA, Gaviria FM, Pathak D (1983) The measurement of social support: the Social Support Network Inventory. Compr Psychiatr 24(6):521–529 Gainer B, Padanyi P (2002) Applying the marketing concept to cultural organisations: an empirical study of the relationship between market orientation and performance. Int J Nonprofit Volunt Sect Mark 7 (2):182–193 Gardner D, Cummings L, Dunham R, Pierce J (1998) Single-item versus multiple-item measurement scales: an empirical comparison. Educ Psychol Meas 58(6):898 Geary DC (2010) Male, female: the evolution of human sex differences, 2nd edn. American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C Golombok S, Fivush R (1994) Gender development. Cambridge Univ Pr
26
W. Wymer
Gorsuch R, McFarland S (1972) Single vs. multiple-item scales for measuring religious values. J Sci Stud Relig 11(1):53–64 Gorsuch R, McPherson S (1989) Intrinsic/extrinsic measurement: I/E-revised and single-item scales. J Sci Stud Relig 28(3):348–354 Haski-Leventhal D (2009) Elderly volunteering and well-being: a cross-European comparison based on SHARE data. Voluntas: Int J Volunt Nonprofit Organ 20(4):388–404 Haski-Leventhal D, Bargal D (2008) The volunteer stages and transitions model: organizational socialization of volunteers. Hum Relat 61(1):67 House JS, (1981) Work stress and social support. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co Hürny C, Bernhard J, Coates A, Peterson H, Castiglione-Gertsch M, Gelber R, Goldhirsch A (1996) Responsiveness of a single-item indicator versus a multi-item scale: assessment of emotional well-being in an international adjuvant breast cancer trial. Med Care 34(3):234–248 Ibrahim N, Brannen D (1997) Implications of gender differences on the motivation to volunteer in hospitals. J Soc Serv Res 22(4):1–18 Independent Sector (2001) Giving & volunteering in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Independent Sector (also available at http://www.cpanda.org/pdfs/gv/GV01Report.pdf) Ingersoll-Dayton B, Antonucci T (1988) Reciprocal and nonreciprocal social support: contrasting sides of intimate relationships. J Gerontol 43(3):S65 Jordan J, Turner B (2008) The feasibility of single-item measures for organizational justice. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci 12:237–257 Krause N, Keith V (1989) Gender differences in social support among older adults. Sex Roles 21(9): 609–628 Maccoby E (1999) The two sexes: growing up apart, coming together. Harvard University Press Nagy M (2002) Using a single-item approach to measure facet job satisfaction. J Occup Organ Psychol 75 (1):77–86 Octon C (1993) A re-examination of marketing for British non-profit organisations. Eur J Mark 17(5): 33–43 Rhoads S (2004) Taking sex differences seriously. Encounter Books Robins R, Hendin H, Trzesniewski K (2001) Measuring global self-esteem: construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 27(2):151 Russell J, Weiss A, Mendelsohn G (1989) Affect grid: a single-item scale of pleasure and arousal. J Personal Soc Psychol 57(3):493–502 Sargeant A (2005) Marketing management for nonprofit organizations, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York Starnes B, Wymer W (2001) Conceptual foundations and practical guidelines for retaining volunteers who serve in local nonprofit organizations: part II. J Nonprofit Public Sect Mark 9(1):97–118 Streeter CL, Franklin C (1992) Defining and measuring social support: guidelines for social work practitioners. Res Soc Work Pract 2(1):81–98 Tardy CH (1985) Social support measurement. Am J Community Psychol 13(2):187–202 Udry J (1994) The nature of gender. Demography 31(4):561–573 Wanous J, Reichers A, Hudy M (1997) Overall job satisfaction: how good are single-item measures? J Appl Psychol 82(2):247–252 Wilson J (2000) Volunteering. Annu Rev Sociol 26:215–240 Wymer W (1997) Segmenting volunteers using values, self-esteem, empathy, and facilitation as determinant variables. J Nonprofit Public Sect Mark 5(2):3–28 Wymer W, Samu S (2002) Volunteer service as symbolic consumption: gender and occupational differences in volunteering. J Mark Manag 18(9):971–989 Wymer W, Samu S (2008) The influence of cause marketing associations on product and cause brand value. Int J Nonprofit Volunt Sect Mark 14(1):1–20 Wymer W, Riecken G, Yavas U (1997) Determinants of volunteerism. J Nonprofit Public Sect Mark 4 (4):3–26 Yavas U, Riecken G (1985) Can volunteers be targeted? J Acad Mark Sci 13(1):218–228